Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

Jewsweek ^ | 7/31/03 | Regenstein

[dts32041]

I actually thought it was the religious leaders who condemn jesus to death thru the crowds and the romans who up held jewish law.

I don't know I maybe wrong won't be the first time, but if that is not the case I will stand corrected quite quickly.

[hellinahandcart]

Lewis Regenstein is author of "Replenish the Earth: The Teachings of the World's Religions on Protecting Animals and Nature" and president of the Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature.

[Cacophonous]

This guy has nothing to worry about. The ADL and the ad hoc Catholic bishop's group disliked the movie because it too closely followed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They much prefer a watered-down, modern interpretation.

[MoJo2001]

The hostilities towards this movie only increases the desire of people to see it. I remember when the "Last Temptation Of Christ" came out and all the uproar added to the hype and the box office boost.

Israel is in need of support from the American Jewish community and this is what the people at Jewsweek are spending their time doing?

I will reserve my opinion of Mel Gibson until I've seen the movie. If he's wrong, then I'll say so. If he's not, I wonder if Jewsweek would say so.

[Varda]

This guy needs a reading comprehension course.

[irishtenor]

The Jewish leaders were the ones who captured him and led him away. He was tried before their tribunal before being sent to Pilot.

[classmuse500]

Yes - didn't Pilate declare that there was no cause to bring charges against Jesus? And the crowds, most likely spurred on by the chief priests and teachers of the law, shouted ,"Crucify! Crucify!".

[Alberta's Child]

Indeed, the New Testament account of these events could be used to discredit Gibson's movie, which he claims is based on the truthful version of events as set forth in the Christian bible.

Since Lewis Regenstein has no qualms about referencing the New Testament, if really wants to get a grip on reality he should ponder the meaning of the term "the stone which the builders rejected." And then meditate on the parable of the master who sent his servant out to gather travelers and beggars from the countryside for a feast, after all the master's friends turned down his invitation.

[mdittmar]

Jewsweek,New Testament?

I'm so confused.

[RaceBannon]

No, While they screamed and moaned to have Christ killed, there was not ONE law from Moses that concemnded Jesus.

Most points this guy made were right on, but he left out how th first people who killed Christians were Jews in Jerusalem, Stephen. Led by the future Apostle Paul.

[fortunecookie]

I actually thought it was the religious leaders who condemn jesus to death thru the crowds and the romans who up held jewish law.

Yes, indeed. The religious leaders of the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus. They didn't want to have his blood on their hands, especially at the high holiday of Passover, so they petitioned the Roman rulers to carry out the task for them on trumped up charges (sedition or insurrection, I think, will have to check Bible - computer probs tonight, no links) and got the crowds all fired up. The crowds were waiting for the Romans to give amnesty to and release a prisoner - Barrabas, as the Romans always granted this amnesty release during the high holidays, kind of like appeasement. The Roman rulers were reluctant, because questioning with Pilate did not reveal wrongdoing, but they were eager to avoid a riot. Seems like both groups played a part. The Romans carried out the actual crucifixion, as they routinely used such methods to punish criminals.

[King Prout]

that's the way I recall it, too. I don't have my Bible with me (at work) but I'm pretty sure that the Pharisees are the ones who corralled Jesus, tried him, condemned him, and then turned him over to Pilate for execution.
None of which is or should ever be taken as license for calling Jews "christ-killers" or anything like that - the author correctly pointed out that Jesus et alia were themselves Jews. Moreover, of course, how are modern Jews accountable for the acts of the Pharisees 1970 years ago? That's worse than holding the modern white descendants of dirt-poor yeomanry accountable for the institution of slavery from 140 years ago.
I am curious as to why the author is so... eager to wail? exercised? about this issue - no one with a brain these days takes the old "blood libel" seriously.

[right way right]

'Twas I Lord Jesus I Crucified thee.

My Sin!

Our Sin!

[what's up]

It was the Jews who insisted the Romans try Jesus, as they had not the legal power to condemn him to death.

Neither Pilate nor Agrippa wanted the case. The Jewish crowd would not accept Barrabas as an alternative...they insisted that Jesus be the one crucified.

[Threepwood]

This is the second article I've seen on from this publication critizing this movie. I can sort of understand their concern, but it's seriously time to *see* the bloody movie before anymore ink gets spilled.

[Fifth Business]

Read further. It gets good.

[swilhelm73]

It seems to me the responsibility for Jesus's cruxificition is shared between the Roman and Jewish leaders of the time in Israel. Exactly, how much of the blame each deserves is really beyond what we know from the accounts written, and really a moot point.

The fact that some Jews...and some Romans...killed Christ does not tarnish either group today in anyway, and no one, Gibson or otherwise, is trying to make this out to be the case.

From the multitude of angry liberals arguing against the point, you'd think they'd have bothered to see if anyone was actually making the argument in the first place...but then that would get in their way of smearing what sounds to be a truly moving religious film.

[RobbyS]

The idea of a bloodthirty Jewish mob may be abhorrant to Jews, but it happened. Besides, except for Pilate there were few Romans involved. The "Roman"soldiers were probably Greek recruits, who had no love for Jews. The Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem was mostly of the same background.