According to Scripture (especially the Gospel of John), Christ died on the cross because God sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins; thus, all sinners are responsible, not simply the Jews of ancient Israel. Mel Gibson has himself blamed all sinners for the crucifixion. If this is the case, the crucifixion of Christ had to happen, and was for that matter foretold by Him.
Why God was willing to allow His only beloved Son to suffer a horrible death is difficult to fathom, but according to Christian apologetics it was preordained so that those who believed in Christ could be saved. Thus it was God—not the Jews alone or the Romans—who was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. One might even say that if this was part of a divine plan, the Jews should get the credit for carrying it out.
Is the Biblical Account Reliable?
Is the story of Jesus as described in the New Testament—in this case of his trial, crucifixion, and death (let alone his birth, ministry, and resurrection)—an accurate account of historical events? I doubt it. This negative appraisal is drawn from careful, scholarly, and scientific examination of the New Testament account.
The key point is the fact that the authors of the Gospels were not themselves eyewitnesses to the events described in these documents. If Jesus died about the year 30 C.E. (this is conjectural, since some even question whether he ever lived), the Gospel according to Mark was probably written in the 70s of the first century; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; and John anywhere from 90 to 100 C.E. They were thus written some forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus. (For convenience I identify the Gospels by the names they received from later church tradition. No one knows the names of the actual authors of these Gospels, which were originally anonymous documents.)
The Gospels are based on an oral tradition, derived at best from second- and third-hand testimony assembled by the early band of Jewish Christians and including anecdotal accounts, ill-attributed sayings, stories, and parables. The Gospels’ claims are not independently corroborated by impartial observers—all the more reason why some skepticism about their factual truth is required. They were not written as history or biography per se—and the authors did not use the methods of careful, historical scholarship. Rather, they were, according to Biblical scholar Randel Helms, written by missionary propagandists for the faith, interested in proclaiming the “good news” and in endeavoring to attract and convert others to Christianity. Hence, the Gospels should not be taken as literally true, but rather as a form of special pleading for a new ideological-moral-theological faith.
In writing the Gospels the authors evidently looked back to the Old Testament and found passages that were suggestive of a Messiah who would appear, who was born of a young woman (or a virgin), and could trace his lineage back to David—which is why Matthew and Luke made such a fuss about having Jesus born in Bethlehem. Accordingly, the Gospels should be read as works of literary art, spun out of the creative imagination, in order to fulfill passionate yearnings for salvation. They are the most influential fictional works to dominate Western culture throughout its history. Whether there is any core of truth to them is questionable; for it is difficult to verify the actual facts, particularly since there is no mention of Jesus or of his miraculous healings in any extant non-Christian literature from the same time-period.
Tradition has it that Mark heard about Jesus from Peter. Eusebius (260–339 C.E.) is one source for this claim, but Eusebius wrote some three centuries after the death of Jesus. In any case, Matthew and Luke most likely base their accounts on Mark. The three synoptic Gospels are similar, though they contradict each other on a number of significant events. Scholars believe that Matthew and Luke both drew upon Mark and upon another literary source (Q, or in German Quelle, meaning “source”) that has been lost.
Another historical fact to bear in mind is that the Gospels were written after a protracted war between the Romans and the Jews (66–74 C.E.), which saw the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple (70 C.E.). Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed in these wars and were dispersed throughout the Mediterranean world. Jerusalem was eventually leveled in 135 C.E. The synoptic Gospels were influenced by the political conditions at the times of the various authors who wrote the Gospels, not during the years of Jesus. John’s Gospel, written somewhat later, reflected the continuing growth of Christianity in his day. The other book attributed to John, Revelation, which is so influential today, predicts the apocalyptic end of the world, the Rapture, and the Second Coming of Jesus. This book in the view of many scholars reflects the ruminations of a disturbed personality. We have no reliable evidence that these events will occur in the future, yet hundreds of millions of people today are convinced that they will—on the basis of sheer faith.
Let’s consider another part of the historical context in the latter part of the first century, when most of the New Testament was composed. Two Jewish sects contended for dominance. First was Rabbinic Judaism, which followed the Torah with all its commandments and rituals (including circumcision and dietary laws). Drawing on the Old Testament, Rabbinic Judaism held that the Jews were the “chosen people.” Once slaves in Egypt, they had escaped to the Promised Land of Palestine. Someday after the Diaspora the Jews would be returned to Israel, and the Temple would be rebuilt. The second sect was early Jewish Christianity, which attempted to appeal not only to Jews but to pagans in the Roman Empire. It could do so effectively only by breaking with Rabbinic Judaism. This is the reason for increasing negative references in the Gospels to “the Jews” (especially in John), blaming them for the crucifixion of Jesus. Christianity was able to make great strides in recruiting converts and competing with non-Jewish sects, such as the Mithraic religion. But it could only do so by disassociating itself from Rabbinic Judaism. It developed a more universal message, which, incidentally, was already implicit in the letters of Paul (written some fifteen to twenty years after the crucifixion of Jesus): The new Christians did not need to be circumcised nor to practice the dietary laws.
Thus, the Biblical texts drawn on in The Passion of the Christ should not be read literally as diatribes against the Jews per se, but rather as the record of a dispute among two Jewish sects competing for ascendancy: traditional and Christianized Judaism.
If one reads the four Gospels side-by-side, as I have done numerous times, one finds many omissions. Evidently their writers never knew Jesus in his own lifetime. Each Gospel was crafted post hoc to satisfy the immediate practical needs of the new Christian churches then developing. They were contrived by human beings who were motivated by the transcendental temptation to believe in Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. The Gospels thus are historically unreliable, and insofar as The Passion of the Christ used them the film is also historically unrealiable. But Gibson goes even beyond the Gospels, as I have indicated.
The Establishment of Christianity
I submit that there are two important inferences to draw from this analysis: First, the union of a religious creed with political power can be extremely destructive, especially when that creed is supported by the power of the state or the Empire. It was the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (around 312 C.E.) that led to the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, some three centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus.
The “Nicene Creed,” which was the product of the Council of Nicaea (convened in 325 C.E.), said that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It also declared Jesus the divine son of God “in one substance” with the Father. The decision which books should be included in the New Testament was political, determined by the vote of the bishops attending the council of Nicaea. At this and other church councils, various apocryphal books revered by particular Christian communities were omitted from the canonical Scriptures. So much for historic objectivity.
The Emperor Julian (331–363 C.E.), a nephew of Constantine and a student of philosophy, became skeptical of Christianity and was prepared to disestablish the Christian church, which he probably would h
ave done had he not been murdered, most likely by a Christian soldier in his army. In any case, Christianity prevailed and the great Hellenic-Roman civilization of the ancient world eventually went into decline. But this occurred in no small measure because of political factors: the grafting of the Bible with the sword, and the establishment of an absolutist Christian creed, intolerant of all other faiths that disagreed, and willing to use any methods to stamp out heresy.
By the fifth century more and more of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire became members of Christian churches, which replaced pagan religions. Christianity reigned supreme across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. The latter two were overrun by the Muslims in the seventh and eighth centuries, but feudal Europe remained stolidly Christian as it entered into the so-called Dark Ages. Only with the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the development of science and the democratic revolutions of our time was the hegemony of Christianity weakened. The secularization of modern society brought in its wake naturalistic ideas and humanist values.
The union of religion and political power has generated terrible religious conflicts historically, pitting Catholics against Protestants, opposing Jihadists versus Crusaders, and triggering constant wars among Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others. God save us from God-intoxicated legions which have the power to enforce their convictions on those who disagree! All the more reason to laud the wisdom of the authors of the American Constitution who enacted the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, prohibiting the establishment of a religion.
Freedom of Inquiry
The second inference to be drawn is that the origins of the Christian legend have for too long lain unexamined, buried by the sands of time. The New Testament was taken by believers as given, and no one was permitted to question its sacred doctrines allegedly based on revelations from On High. But skepticism is called for—the same skepticism that should also be applied to the alleged revelations by Moses on Mount Sinai and other prophets of the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews who accept the legend of a “chosen people” and the promise that God gave Israel to the Jews likewise base this conviction on uncorroborated testimony.
Today, thanks to the tools of historical scholarship, Biblical criticism, and science developed in the past two centuries, we can undertake sophisticated scholarly and scientific inquiries. These tools enable us to use circumstantial evidence, archaeology, linguistic analysis, and textual criticism to authenticate or disconfirm the veracity of ancient literary documents. Regrettably, the general public is almost totally unaware of this important research. Similarly for the revelations of Muhammad and the origins of Islam in the Qur’an. Since they are similarly uncorroborated by independent eyewitnesses, they rest on similarly questionable foundations. There is again a rich literature of skeptical scrutiny. But most scholars are fearful of expressing their dissenting conclusion.
The so-called books of Abraham—the Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an—need to be scrutinized by rational and scientific analyses. And the results of these inquiries need to leave the academy and be read and digested more widely. Unfortunately, freedom of inquiry had rarely been applied to the foundations of the “sacred texts.” Indeed, until recently severe punishment of religious dissenters was the norm in many parts of the world.
Given the tremendous box office success of Mel Gibson’s film, there are bound to be other Jesus movies produced—for Jesus sells in America! The Passion of the Christ unfortunately may add to intolerance of dissenters; and this may severely endanger the fragility of social peace. It may further help to undermine the First Amendment’s prohibition of the establishment of religion, which has been the mainstay of American democracy. This indeed is the most worrisome fallout that the Gibson film is likely to produce.*
SOURCES
John Dominic Crossan. 1995. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper.
Anne Catherine Emmerich. 2003. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Translated by Klemens Maria Brentano. El Sobrante: North Bay Books.
Randel Helms. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst: Prometheus.
R. Joseph Hoffmann. 1984. Jesus Outside the Gospels. Amherst: Prometheus.
Paul Kurtz. 1991. Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. Amherst: Prometheus.
G.A. Wells. 1980. Did Jesus Exist? Amherst: Prometheus.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. In what ways can one construe The Passion of the Christ as anti-Semitic?
2. How historically reliable are the Gospels?
3. Is Gibson’s film historically accurate?
4. How does the use of Emmerich’s visionary book affect the understanding of Gibson’s film?
5. Is what ways could one argue that Gibson’s film is socially dangerous?
* This chapter first appeared, with slight differences, in Free Inquiry.
9
Is The Passion of the Christ Racist? Due Process, Responsibility, and Punishment
J. ANGELO CORLETT
The Passion of the Christ is a moving depiction of the last days of Jesus of Nazareth, who is believed by many to be the Messiah prophesied by the Jewish Scriptures. The Passion is to films about the death of Jesus what Saving Private Ryan is to movies about the storming of the beach at Normandy. Never before has the death of Jesus been dramatized so vividly. Never has the torture that was his experience been brought to life for viewers to appreciate, however uncomfortably.
The film raises several ethical issues related to suicide, betrayal, freedom of religious expression, political separation of church and state, racism, due process, responsibility, and punishment. In this chapter, I focus mostly on those involving racism, due process, responsibility, and punishment.
Racism and The Passion of the Christ
Is The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic and racist? Many believe it to be so, perhaps motivated by the idea that no Jewish person can do great wrong, or by the notion that anything that portrays any Jew in a negative light is anti-Semitic, or by a fear that anything even resembling anti-Semitism today might well bring wrath upon Jewish persons that might rival Hitler’s genocidal acts, or by the attitude that Jews are a divinely chosen people and in their special relationship to God should never be treated “unfairly” even in works of art, or by some other implausible view. But is this movie in fact racist in its portrayal of Jews? I take it that what is typically meant by viewers of the film who ask this kind of question is whether or not Jewish persons are depicted throughout the film as “responsible” for the killing of Jesus, which was on any plausible account unjust and even evil.
Let us assume for the sake of discussion that the Christian Scriptures (mostly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are reasonably accurate in what they state about the life and death of Jesus. And let us also grant that most of what is depicted in the film is reasonably faithful to these records. One could still quibble over certain details, such as whether the placement of the nails on Jesus’s hand (rather than the wrists) in the crucifixion is historically accurate, or whether or not Satan really did appear as portrayed in the film, or whether or not certain women are presented as being overly weak, or whether or not the languages spoken by the characters in the film match the ones that were most likely spoken, and so on. But all in all, the film seems to fit well with a common-sense but sensitive reading of the Christian Scriptures. These other details, while of interest to those of us who have serious concerns regarding historical accuracy, do not play a significant role in an ethical evaluation of some of the major issues raised by the film. The concentration on such details functions as a smoke screen which covers the real ethical issues the film raises in its attempt to tell the story of Jesus’s death.
So let us return to the original question: Is The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic and racist? There are at least two important questions to consider here. First, we might ask whether the content or message of the f
ilm is anti-Semitic and racist. Here we would be asking whether, say, the director or scriptwriters of the film intend to send an anti-Semitic message to viewers, for whatever reasons. I am in no position to judge this question, as I do not lay any claim to the director’s or scriptwriters’ intentions or views. So I leave it for others to explore, hopefully with fairness.
Second, might the film inflame the passions of some who will hate the Jewish High Priest (Caiaphas) so badly for his role in the violent killing of Jesus that they unthinkingly generalize their hatred to all Jews? This is definitely a possibility. Works of art typically engage audiences to think profoundly about their subject matters, but at times the emotions are aroused so as to leave rationality behind. However, that this is likely to happen is insufficient reason to think that the film itself (either intentionally or not) portrays all Jewish people negatively or unfairly. Indeed, the film depicts some Jewish religious leaders as disagreeing vehemently with the majority of their colleagues (including Caiaphas) arguing that Jesus was innocent of the charges of blasphemy and threatening to destroy the Temple, and that he should be left alone.
Just as important is the depiction in the film of various mixed reactions to Jesus as he was forced to carry his cross through the streets of Jerusalem, where some onlookers jeered him while others cheered him. In fact, one of the heroes of the film is Simon of Cyrene, the humble Jewish man who helped carry Jesus’s cross when Jesus himself could carry it no further. He also stood up for Jesus, courageously scolding the Roman soldiers who were abusing him both verbally and physically along the way. Nor should we forget that the characters that are portrayed most positively in the film (Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus) were themselves Jews.
Mel Gibson's Passion and Philosophy Page 12
