Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story.

Muslims have their story: God's revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story: the covenant between man and God at Sinai.

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

Vatican II did not question the Gospels. It did not disavow its own central story. It took responsibility for it, and for the baleful history it had spawned. Recognizing that all words, even God's words, are necessarily subject to human interpretation, it ordered an understanding of those words that was most conducive to recognizing the humanity and innocence of the Jewish people.

The Vatican did that for good reason. The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed ! in its s hadow.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears ! four tim es. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."

Spare us such love.

-- TIA (TIAMARIE@COMCAST.COM), March 20, 2004

Answers

I think your overreacting, especially since Jesus was Jewish. So where the Aostles. So where the early followers.

The Jewish LEADERS athte tme, who where corrupt , not the whole Jewish rleigion and people.( As the Rabbi's had noted, in works predating, and up to, the im of Christ, the preists where corrupted by power and money.)

The Cruc=ifiction can be told safely,a dn must be told, as is, and it is our right to do this.

Jesus did not condemn the Jews, nor do I. Why woudl i condemn my own Saviour, himself a Jew?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 21, 2004.

Kriss Kross, your crass and insensitive post has been deleted. So that you may be aware of what we expect in with regards to conduct here in the forum, please read the thread entitled "Rules of the Forum".

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 21, 2004.

Tia,

Just about everyone, including Mary, Jesus and the apostles, in the movie were Jewish. This is a story of Jewish history. That Jews are involved, should be of no surprise.

Satan was placed within the groups of people wanting harm to Jesus. That seems reasonable.

Gibson has personally acknowledge the holocaust in a number of recent interviews. I think you are believing 3rd hand sources and it is disengenuous to bring it up. I think it is an attempt by some liberals and non-believers to divide people and disparage the film for their own nefarious reasons.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.

This is a very disappointing article by Krauthammer, who normally is a pretty insightful and level-headed political commentator. Ann Coulter wrote a pretty good article recently responding to this column, I believe, and to one of William Safire's.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 22, 2004.

"He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching"????

A lot of people talks about Nostra Aetate without reading it:

“Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (13); still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new People of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the Word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.”

-- Félix G. (comopudiste@hotmail.com), March 22, 2004.

Apart form Mel's statements or beliefs in Mexico his film is having the first place as far as attendance and monetary returns in the history of filmaking in this country.

A funny thing: just heard a commentary from someone who professes himself atheist: "How could he, a believer, use the life of someone considered sacred in order to have a monetary gain?"

My friend's remark made me wonder:

- How for an atheist is Christ someone "sacred"? Does not this contradict his position as an unbielever?

- If someone makes money from a work of art does that mean that he necessarily had only that in mind?

- When the great painters or sculptors of religious art during the Renaissance made their masterpieces and got paid for it were they sinning?

I know that someone will tell me that I should address my remarks to my friend. I've already done that, but since he is often in Internet I told him to see what answers my questions get so that he will ponder them and meditate on them.

May God show him the path of faith.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 24, 2004.