Replies

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.

I wonder if Gibson will include the fact that Caiaphas was appointed to his job by the Romans. The gospel writers wimped out on that point.

Jesus states that Pilate's authority came from God, however, he omits the fact that, since Caiaphas was appointed by the Romans, then his authority must have come from God too.

The politics were a little more complex than that. Caiphas and the Sadducees represented the hellenized Jews and the Greeks who were large landowners in Judaea. But as, the Pharisses had more support among the people, the Sadducees could not, as Josephus says, do anything without them. The Procurator and the Rome were there for the tribute and would not do anything that would slow the cash flow. But the gospel writers cut to the chase. The "Jews," i.e. the leadership wanted Jesus dead and found the easy way was to use the Romans. The Creed is quite definite in placing the historic responsibility. It says: "suffered under Pontius Pilate."

Caiphas came from a family of priests. His sons also became high priests. I have no doubt he paid for his office--which was how the system worked and how a proconsul like Pilate would have made his fortune. There is a probability Caiphas also had connections in Rome and had leverage over Pilate. It is not necessarily true that his appointment indicated he was Pilate's tool.

In any case, what is your point--that the Gospels are wrong and you are right and that the Christian faith is based on false premises about Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus? Don't you think this is kind of arrogant, suggesting to Christians that their holy texts are mistaken and that Gibson ought to have consulted with modern scholars before making his movie? This is absurd. He's a Christian, not a humanist scholar with a vested interest in undermining the New Testament.

As for Jesus's comment that Pilate's authority came from God--I'm sure the same could have been said of Caiphas, as you say. But so what? While authority comes from God, the way such authority is wielded--whether justly or unjustly--is a matter of an individual's judgment. Pilate and Caiphas still would have been obliged to act justly. They did not.

"Jesus states that Pilate's authority came from God, however, he omits the fact that, since Caiaphas was appointed by the Romans, then his authority must have come from God too."

The Gospel writers do not wimp out on this fact at all - St. John clearly ascribes the charism of prophecy to Caiphas in virtue of his holding the high priestly office:

John 11,49 "But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing.
50 Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation."

God can speak through the holders of ecclesiastical office in spite of them being corrupt gutter-snipes like Caiphas, and in spite of them lacking cognisance of the full import of their words. The infallibility of the Popes is built on exactly this principle and there have been some who behaved more like Caiphas than Cephas.