This week in the New Yorker (Mel Gibson interview)

PRESS CONTACTS: Perri Dorset, Director, Public Relations (212) 286-5898 Jodi Bart, Junior Publicist (212) 286-5996

In his forthcoming film, "The Passion," "I didn't want to see Jesus looking really pretty. I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it," Mel Gibson tells Peter J. Boyer in "The Jesus War," in the September 15, 2003, issue of The New Yorker. "Violence," writes Boyer, who has seen an early, unfinished version of the movie, "is Gibson's natural film language, and his Jesus is unsparingly pummelled, flayed, kicked, and otherwise smitten from first to last." Gibson's retelling of the final week in the life of Jesus has already attracted tremendous controversy over its depiction of the role of the Jews in Christ's death, a dispute in which, Boyer writes, "the familiar advocates have reflexively assumed their familiar stations, even though the dramatic form at issue—the Christian Passion play—is so obscure in the secular age that many Americans, perhaps most, would not likely be able to describe it." Gibson tells Boyer that he has included subtitles in his film, which is performed in Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic, to make it clear that some of the Jews portrayed in the movie are sympathetic figures. "You've just got to have them," he says, referring to the subtitles. "I mean, I didn't think so, but so many people say things to me like 'Why aren't there more sympathetic Jews in the crowd?' Well, they're there." Gibson adds, "It's just amazing to me how one-eyed some people are about this thing. I mean, it's like a veil comes down and they just can't see it. For instance, did you know that one of the priests helps take his body down from the Cross? It's there! Nobody sees it. They can only view it from one eye."

Gibson originally shot a scene, based on Saint Matthew's Gospel, that pictured Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest, calling down a curse on the Jews for killing Jesus, but he has chosen not to include it. "I wanted it in," he says. "My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. It happened; it was said, but man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me." Criticism of Gibson's film began early; it grew after an ad-hoc group of interfaith scholars received a copy of the script anonymously in the mail and issued a critique of it. "I didn't realize it would be so vicious," Gibson says of the criticism. "The acts against the film started early. As soon as I announced I was doing it, it was 'This is a dangerous thing.' There is a vehement anti-Christian sentiment out there, and they don't want it. It's vicious. I mean, I think we're just a little part of it, we're just the meat in the sandwich here." On another occasion, Gibson tells a group of evangelicals he has brought to see the film that "the L.A. Times, it's an anti-Christian publication, as is the New York Times." Of Frank Rich, who wrote in the Times that Gibson was using "p.r. spin to defend a Holocaust denier," Gibson says, "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick....I want to kill his dog." Paul Lauer, Gibson's marketing director, who overheard Gibson saying this, tells Boyer, "The thing you have to understand is that the distance between Mel's heart and his mouth is greater than the distance between his imagination and his mouth. He is an artist, and he says these things, and his creative energy kicks in, and he comes out with these imaginative, wild things." It is Gibson's father who has been accused of being a Holocaust denier, a charge Gibson rejects. Gibson says, "I don't want to be dissing my father. He never denied the Holocaust; he just said there were fewer than six million. I don't want to have them dissing my father. I mean, he's my father."

Gibson's commitment to his faith, which has also inspired him to build a church near his home in California that celebrates the Tridentine Latin Mass rejected by Vatican reformers in the nineteen-sixties, reëmerged during his mid-thirties, he explains. "You can get pretty wounded along the way, and I was kind of out there. I got to a very desperate place. Very desperate. Kind of jump-out-of-a-window desperate. And I didn't want to hang around here, but I didn't want to check out. The other side was kind of scary. And I don't like heights, anyway. But when you get to the point where you don't want to live, and you don't want to die—it's a desperate, horrible place to be. And I just hit my knees. And I had to use the Passion of Christ and wounds to heal my wounds. And I've just been meditating on it for twelve years." Speaking of his own Traditionalist worship, he tells Boyer, "Believe me, every other type of everything is easier than what I do." The brouhaha over his film, Gibson points out, has had a curious effect: "Inadvertently," he says, "all the problems and the conflicts and stuff—this is some of the best marketing and publicity I have ever seen."

Your logic is faulty. If someone gets his authority from God, he must use that power justly. If an authority puts an innocent man to death, he would be using his power unjustly and would immediately be delegitimizing his particular action. This holds true in all societies. It is never legitimate to wield power unjustly.

As for Romans 13, the way to read the text you've cited is to place it in its proper context. Paul is talking about governmental power and the need to obey it and not posit criminal acts. The laws of good order which govern most societies properly determine the behavior of subjects or citizens. But it would be perverse to take this to mean one could not resist injustice or tyranny or that governments could not do evil. When they posit evil actions, these may be resisted.

This is why your final point is absurd. Simply because authority is ordained by heaven, it does not follow power is always wielded wisely or justly. But the moment power is used in an evil way, such authority would over-step its divinely ordained mandates. Authority is given by God for a good reason--to assure justice and order, not to persecute the innocent. It is therefore always permissible to resist such evil actions--but never permissible to resist authority wantonly, for selfish ends.

You are wrong in your analogy. Blame would be shared by the Iraqis who brought false charges against an innocent man, as well as by Bremer. Both would be implicated in an unjust act, not legally but morally. So it was back then. And the members of the Sanhedrin, don't forget, were significant for another reason: they were officially rejecting the Messiahship of Jesus on behalf of their people, despite his miracles and good works. As John tells us: he came unto his own and his own received him not. That is the real significance of their rejection--Jesus was still another of a long line of prophets rejected by Jerusalem.

"Apparently, when he says "he that delivered me," he is referring to Caiaphas."

That's a big assumption to make - he could have been referring to Judas Iscariot.

"If you notice, in the gospels, Jesus directs all of his insults and cursing at the Pharisees, who did not have any official power. He never insults the High Priest and he never, NEVER insults the Romans."

It was the Pharisees and corrupt temple authorities who opposed Jesus' mission - the Romans initially were quite indifferent to Jesus and His Church. The idea of a man claiming divinity was nothing unusual in a pagan context.

Until 64AD it was precisely the Pharisees and Temple authorities who conducted the pogrom against "Christians" so it is only natural that there would be antipathy towards them. As all the gospels were written before this time, this is the situation that they reflect. The "Christians" had recourse to the Romans as the civil authorities in order to gain protection from their "Jewish" persecutors.

For all your protestation that the Pharisees had no official power, they are clearly the ones who lead the pogrom against the disciples of Christ, with Saul of Tarsus, pupil of Gamaliel coordinating the persecution.

Once the Neronian persecution of the Christians commenced, there is also criticism of the Roman authorities, along with their Herodian puppets and the corrupt temple regime. This is clearly evidenced in the Apocalypse of St. John.

St. John also makes it abundantly clear in his Gospel that it is the complicity of the chief priests and their Roman masters that leads to Christ's execution:

John 19,15 "But they cried out: Away with him; away with him; crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar."

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that it is "all who have sinned" and are thereby responsible for Christ's death. Jews are no different from the gentiles in this and they have equally fallen short of the glory of God. Your attempts to exonerate them from any guilt are nothing but political correctness that has no theological value.

Gentile and Jew alike are complicit in Christ's death by their sin, and neither can be justified and enter into covenant with God apart from baptism into Christ.

This is not a very exact analogy.

For one thing, Jesus was not accused of a crime such as robbery or murder, but of the violation of Jewish religious law. The Romans were concerned about Jewish practice and belief only to the extent that it affected Rome's interests. On various other occasions, Pilate had been conciliatory to Jewish leaders who demanded particular things, but this was done not because he cared one way or the other about their views, but because he feared a revolt.

This would be more akin to one Muslim faction asking Bremer to punish a Muslim of another faction for violating one of the first group's beliefs or laws. This is not something that Bremer would do, even if he feared a revolt; but for Pilate - famous for saying, "What is truth?"- it was a matter of expediency and Rome's best interests.

And blame is indeed attributed to Pilate in the Creed itself.

For a really interesting view of this, I recommend the book Pontius Pilate, by Anne Wroe. It's extremely readable, well researched, and is a fascinating examination of Pilate as an individual and of his times and the parallel lives of Rome and Israel.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that it is "all who have sinned" and are thereby responsible for Christ's death. Jews are no different from the gentiles in this and they have equally fallen short of the glory of God. Your attempts to exonerate them from any guilt are nothing but political correctness that has no theological value.

Gentile and Jew alike are complicit in Christ's death by their sin, and neither can be justified and enter into covenant with God apart from baptism into Christ.

Excellent post Tantumergo! Thank you.

This would be more akin to one Muslim faction asking Bremer to punish a Muslim of another faction for violating one of the first group's beliefs or laws. This is not something that Bremer would do, even if he feared a revolt; but for Pilate - famous for saying, "What is truth?"- it was a matter of expediency and Rome's best interests.

OK. I will go along with that. Your analogy is better. But it does not change the fact that the official in authority (Pilate) was to blame.

He did not HAVE to crucify Jesus. The explanation in the gospels as to why he did it is not convincing, in my opinion. Caiaphas, the man who delivered Jesus to him was a Roman appointee, just as he was. He owed his very lucrative position to Rome (either to Pilate or to someone higher up). Pilate did not have to worry about offending Caiaphas. Caiaphas was hated by the people.

And, the mob that appeared while this was going on and called for Jesus to be crucified was necessarily representative of public opinion. What kind of governor would execute a man simply because a mob demanded it? Did Pilate really think there would be a revolt if he did not execute this man? What could possibly make him think that? Why did he not just lock Jesus up in jail until he had time to sort out the facts? Herod Antipas had kept John the Baptist locked up for months.

For all your protestation that the Pharisees had no official power, they are clearly the ones who lead the pogrom against the disciples of Christ, with Saul of Tarsus, pupil of Gamaliel coordinating the persecution.

On what do you base the claim that the Pharisees led a "pogrom" against Christians? At the trial of Peter and John (Acts 5:34-39) the Pharisees argue for acquittal.

Josephus does not mention any Pharisee pogrom against Christians. Josepus relates that, when the High Priest Annanias executes James the Righteous, certain Jews, who seem by description to be Pharisees, protest to Rome and have Annanias removed from office.

And, regarding Paul's claim to have been a student of Gamaliel, knowledgeable Jews laugh at that claim. Paul knew nothing about Judaism and could not even read Hebrew.

In any case, no Pharisee would have held the job Paul claimed to have held, as an enforcer for the High Priest. The Pharisees considered the High Priest illegitimate. Paul may have been able to fool gentiles with stories like that, but no Jew would ever believe it.

So it was back then. And the members of the Sanhedrin, don't forget, were significant for another reason: they were officially rejecting the Messiahship of Jesus on behalf of their people,

As I stated in previous messages, there is no proof in the text of the gospels that Jesus was tried by the Great Sanhedrin. According to John, who intimates that he was an eyewitness, Jesus was tried only by the High Priest and the former High Priest.

And let me get this straight. Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah? I was under the impression he never actually claimed that.

As for Romans 13, the way to read the text you've cited is to place it in its proper context. Paul is talking about governmental power and the need to obey it and not posit criminal acts. The laws of good order which govern most societies properly determine the behavior of subjects or citizens. But it would be perverse to take this to mean one could not resist injustice or tyranny or that governments could not do evil. When they posit evil actions, these may be resisted.

Where does it say that in the New Testament?

Matthew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus' message was that it was a sin to resist the Roman Empire. People who rebelled against Rome, such as Barabbas, are portrayed as criminals in the gospels. People who oppressed the Jews, such as the publicans, were not evil in Jesus' eyes. Jewish law could be ignored but Roman law should be obeyed, according to Jesus. The stewards of Jewish law, the Pharisees, were called "sons of the devil" by Jesus. Pilate, on the other hand, was faultless, according to him.

Perhaps Jesus should have applied for messiahship of Rome (which was what he really was).

The quarrel Jesus had with the Pharisees was that they were substituting their own overly legalistic man-made tradition--which would later become the Mishnah--for Sacred Scripture and the Mosaic Tradition. This is what he found deadening spiritually. And he disliked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, their public displays of praying and fasting and scorn for the lowly like publicans and prostitutes.

As for turning the other cheek--this is good advice in some circumstances, when there is a need to break a cycle of violence and endless retribution. But Jesus also advised his disciples to be wise as serpents, to learn from the children of darkness--those who behave shrewdly. We are not supposed to be naive in dealing with others. He himself was not.

It was the Sanhedrin, called by John the Council. But in Acts of the Apostles, the Sanhedrin is sometimes called the Council, sometimes called the Sanhedrin. There was little consistency and the words were interchangeable.

Jesus in fact didn't go around calling himself the Messiah. People called him "rabbi". But he confirmed Peter's declaration in Matthew 16:18, "Thou art the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God."

By the way, we now know the Gospel of Matthew was extant as early as 68 A.D. A papyrus fragment in Greek was unearthed dating back to that period and it matches exactly in script and material another piece of papyrus concerning a business transaction that had been definitely dated to the time of Nero. This places the first Gospel well into the first century.

The only time the NT definitely mentions the Great Sanhedrin is in Acts 5, when it refers to the "Senate of all the People." The tribunal that tried Jesus was not definitely the Great Sanhedrin. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a criminal trial such as this could be as few as 23 members.

At all events, criminal causes were tried before a commission of twenty-three members (in urgent cases any twenty-three members might do).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm

Since Jesus' trial was clearly an urgent case, it probably consisted of only 23 members and, since any 23 would do and the Pharisees are never mentioned as being there, we can assume Caiaphas packed it with his Sadducee allies.

(That is if there was even a trial, since John does not mention a trial)

The Pharisees believed that their "tradition" was an oral instruction passed to the Jews by God at Mount Sinai at the time the Torah was given. They believed, for example, that God instructed them to wash their hands before eating. Jesus told them this was unneccessary, but, today we know about germs, so the Pharisee tradition makes more sense. The Pharisees did not know why they were washing their hands, only that God had instructed it.

And he disliked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, their public displays of praying and fasting and scorn for the lowly like publicans and prostitutes.

The publicans were not in the same league as prostitutes. They were bully boys who terrorized the people. The Pharisees rightly scorned them.

The publican system of tax collection was so unjust and universally hated throughout the empire that the Romans were forced to abandon it in the 200's. However, Jesus never condemned it. Jesus never condemned ANY injustice visited on the Jews by the Romans.

As for turning the other cheek--this is good advice in some circumstances, when there is a need to break a cycle of violence and endless retribution.

Jesus commanded "You shall not resist evil." That is what he said. You can try to explain that away or rationalize it, but your rationalizations are merely the tradition of men rather than biblical. Christians do exactly what they condemn the Pharisees for doing.

The discovery was made by a well-known papyrologist, Casten Peter Theide a few years ago. The fragments were found originally in Egypt, then shipped to Magdalen College in Oxford. They include Matthew 26: 7-8; 26:10; 26:14-16; 26:22-23; 26:31-33. These are accounts of Jesus' annointing at the house of Simon the Leper and his betrayal to the chief priests by Judas. The fragments are in Greek. They match exactly the script and papyrus of other fragments, also found in Egypt, umistakably from the same time period, and stored at the Bibiotheque Nationale in Paris. What is significant is that the latter was a record of a business transaction that has been dated as the "twelfth year of Nero Klaudius" and also as "the year 12 of Nero the lord. Epeieph 30"--which would place these fragments in July of 65/66 A.D.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.