Mel Gibson

[DavidS]

The Channel 4 programme about Mel Gibson, his father and the film, The Passion of the Christ, made interesting viewing. There is little doubt that the film is anti semitic, but then so is the New Testament. The thing that was brought home to me was that the washing of the hands by Pontius Pilate was not, as it is often portrayed today, Pilate purging himself of blame, but a transferrance of blame to the Jewish people. This is clear from the relevant passage in St Matthew's gospel. This film, together with other factors, may bring about an increase in anti-semitic behaviour. This would be unfortunate and totally unjustified but, nevertheless, Mel Gibson is to be credited with renewing the strength of the Easter message. Something the churches have failed to do in modern times.

[Officer Dibble]

"There is little doubt that the film is anti semitic,"

But how? In what way?

To me "anti" means you are against or hate something. Are you suggesting that the film is anti Jewish simply because it depicts the fact that it was Jesus's own people that killed him? That, to me, is simply stating a fact. Why should that fact lead me (or anyone else) on to being anti Semitic just because I accept that in ancient times, in the eastern Mediterranean, some power hungry, hypocritical, sanctimonious twats eliminated a threat to their positions of power and privilege. Happens all the time, everywhere. Why should we hate the modern Jewish people over this one particular incident that occurred two thousand years ago? The proposition is absurd.

Yes, there is anti Semitism surrounding this whole film. But that's nothing to do with what happens on screen. It's when people pose the question "Is this film, book, play etc, anti Semitic?" They are putting the idea into other people's heads that there is something out there called 'anti Semitism' something that they were not really aware of, or cared about, something that's about putting the boot into Jewish people. So, the next thought that pops into their irrational, mob-like, sheep-like heads is "Hey, that sounds fun, and quite trendy too. Maybe I should join up?"

It not just the enemies of Judaism that stir the anti Semitic pot. Quite often it's Jews themselves, or more precisely Jewish intellectuals and extremists who crave the attention and hullabaloo. Makes them feel important and valid, gets them invites to state their case on Channel 4 and Newsnight. Then, when they get back to the old synagogue, or whatever, they can swagger in and, in a round about way, say "Hey, did you see me on TV sticking it to Jerry Paxman?... Well, you know, they only invited me because I'm a 'top man' in our community.

Yes, it's all bullshit and bollocks. So why don't we just discard the antic-Semitic cobblers and just go see a good yarn about political intrigue and assassination in ancient Judea? In short, it's only anti Semitic if we want it to be.

Officer Dibble

[DavidS]

It is not that simple. There is little doubt that St Matthew's gospel, in particular, tried to transfer the blame from Pilate to the Jews. The passage following the washing of Pilate's hands makes this clear. You are of course correct that it is of no relevance today except, that most of the pogroms of history have come about as a result of the New Testament placing the blame for the crucifixion on the Jewish people as a a whole. The biggest progrom of the lot, the final solution, was not done for religious reasons it is true, but there is no doubt that it was widely supported in some of the occupied countries, such as the Baltic states and the Ukraine because the Jews were looked upon as the killers of Christ. I am not suggesting that Christ was anti semitic, he was just opposed to rigid Jewish dogma, but the gospel writers were.

[Officer Dibble]

Sure, there?s no doubt that all sorts of people with agendas have sought to use the Crucifixion as a stick with which to beat the Jews. Possibly even Gibson himself in 'The Passion' - we know he adheres to the slightly odd beliefs of an oddball Christian sect. But what I'm suggesting is that all this 'Christ killer' nonsense is just that, nonsense. It's just a convenient and comprehensible instrument to whip up the simple minded masses into a mob, that once in a frenzy, can then be directed against any target, not necessarily the Jews. A technique of mass control used effectively throughout history by a range of diverse people and institutions, such as, Adolf Hitler, our own dear Current Bun, New Of The World and Daily Mail.

I don't think the individual folks in the Baltic, Ukraine, or elsewhere, were particularly aggrieved that some ancient Jewish priests and officials engineered Christ's demise. They were just open to the suggestion and excitement of being in a mob and putting the boot into someone or some other group. That the Jews supposedly killed Christ was the religious (there's no higher law than God's) justification with which they absolved their consciences. Part of their minds knew they were doing wrong, but they didn't want to stop because it was exiting, intoxicating. Similar to the old Salem witch trials - "Hey, that old lady lives in a hut in the woods and has a black cat. She must be a witch! Let's have a bonfire! Wheyhey!" Mel's film is not anti-Semitic, unless we want it to be.

Officer Dibble

[Pervert]

The Jews that people of mediaeval Britain hated tended to be jewellers and money lenders. They kept themselves to themselves, were very foreign even among the melting pot that was English society in the 12th-15th centuries, and were clean at a time when people didn't bathe---even the aristocracy. This fussy, fastidiousness would also have made them seem foreign, and make it seem as though they were looking down their noses at others. All it needed was a nobleman in debt looking to take the pressure off. and some hatred could be stirred up---a quite common lie was that Jews sacrificed Christian infants in some of their religious rituals. Now if the mob mentality of an allegedly educated country like this one could lead people to attack a paediatrician when they're thinking paedophile, how easy to wind up the superstitious townsfolk to deal with some "Christ-killers" for you?

Much of the same attitude survived in western Europe (including Britain) well into the last century, and it continues to live on in parts of eastern Europe. What was once used for political or economic motives became ingrained into generations of "good" Christians.

Whether Gibson is anti-semitic or not, I don't know, but by following a story laid out in one of the gospels he is perpetuating a lie that has survived 2000 years---that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. The Romans executed him. The priests may very well have wanted him dead, but they were not the Jewish people.

As I've already said elsewhere, when the fledgling religion was beginning to grow, the leaders felt that the Jews should abandon the Talmud and flock to their Christ. It didn't happen, so Paul and various others washed their hands of Christ's own people and started hawking the religion to a different audience---one they couldn't afford to upset.

It's strange that the phrase "gospel truth" has come to mean something that cannot be denied. Since the four gospels differ on some points, they can't all be the truth. Ignore me, I'm a sad old Atheist.

[diplodocus]

having been brought up catholic and going to a catholc school until the age of 18 i've had religion stuffed down my gullet a long time (the school made it compulsary to study RE to GCSE level). The understanding i gained from the gospels was certainly not that it was anti-semetic, if anything it seemed to teach more tolerance and was anti-bigots.

The focus of the GCSE was more on St Marks gospel and was taken as a historical text as this was the first gospel written and i think there was a lot more politics involved in the execution.

Again the problem with the bible is that people take the little parts out that suit their own agenda, in this case the infamous line 'his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children' which i take to mean 'just get on with it we don't give a toss' fuelled by the mob mentality, but is used today and in the past to justify anti-semetic views.

This bastardisation of select bits of the bible cases loads of problems today ie 'eye for an eye' or 'man shall not lie with man' etc
whilst other bits are ignored
ie 'eating shellfish is unclean and thus forbidden'

unfortunately this will probably always be the case which is why i want bugger all to do with organised religion and the hypocrites who run it in whatever form it takes

[DavidS]

Although I agree with most of what has been said in this thread, I think there is a problem where people have been taught religion. It is rarely taught properly. Another difficulty is that only the King James version of the bible is valid in English. Other newer versions are interpretations of the bible. The King James version is a direct translation of the New Testament from the original Greek. Few people can doubt when they read the passage following Pilate washing his hands in St Matthew's gospel, that it was the intention of the gospel writer to transfer the blame for the excecution from the Romans to the Jewish people as a whole, not just Caiaphas. However, it is clear that the crucifixtion was a Roman excecution carried out on the direction of a Roman governer. While on the subject of the Romans and early Christians it is perhaps worth pointing out that Nero's campaign against them may well have been justified in that there is evidence that they did start the great fire in Rome. The Romans were reasonably tolerant of other peoples' religious beliefs. However they did have difficulties with the Jewish religion, considering their God to be a most uppity one by insisting that there is no other God before me.

Officer Dibble is totally correct in his views that religion is a way of persuading basically unsophisticated people to follow a path that they otherwise would not. Diplodocus remark about shellfish is a good one. Religious dietary law came about because in the days before refrigeration, certain foods, notably pork,was dangerous in a hot climate. Simple people could not be persuaded about this by reasoned argument, so Jewish and Islamic dietary law came about. Whether this should still be tolerated in modern idustrialised countries from an animal welfare point of view is another argument. Suffice to say that in St Matthew's gospel Christ is highly critical of the Jewish dietary law. I have no religious beliefs, but do find the bible an interesting book. In particul;ar by reading it I realise that when taught religious knowledge at school, much of the teaching was misleading.

[WillieBo]

'Nero's campaign against them may well have been justified in that there is evidence that they did start the great fire in Rome.'

David S : Could you please post the sources and evidence for this as a good friend of ours has recently updated her 1984 biography of Nero and we'd be very interested in the new evidence.

[DavidS]

Sorry WillieBo, I can't. I remember hearing the allegation in a tv programme about Nero. It MAY have been in Brian Walden's series about villians, but not confident. I will also check by biopgraphical dictionary to see if I saw it there and if so comeback to you.