Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of the Christ is the most controversial English language film to come along in quite a while, probably since Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ. Now, of course, few people have actually seen Gibson's film since it won't be released until the end of February. But that minor technicality has not stopped scores of people from blasting it as anti-Semitic. From my reading of the controversy surrounding the film, there appears to be three general lines of criticism: the Jews in the film are portrayed in negative, stereotypical ways; the Jews are portrayed as universally condemning Jesus, rather than showing compassion for Him; and the film includes a quote from the crowd that centuries ago was used to justify anti-Semitism. Let us consider these three lines of argument.

The complaint on how the Jews in the crowd are portrayed--"Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said last month the film made Jews look evil and sinister 'like dark-eyed Rasputins.'" according to a recent article--cannot really be addressed until the film is released. It is a somewhat subjective interpretation, but if it is true, this would be a valid criticism of the film. We'll have to wait to decide.

Another common bone of contention, and this is somewhat related to the first, is that the Jews in the crowd are quite unified in their rejection of Jesus. There is, they say, a lack of compassion for Jesus. From what I have read of the film, and even the critics appear in agreement, it portrays in unflinching, graphic, gory detail the full extent of the brutality and torture to which Jesus was subjected before His death. Those opposing the film, Jewish and non-Jewish, view this brutality and then come out condemning the way the Jews viewing the events are portrayed. Are these critics not doing the same thing they say the observers were doing in the film? Do they show compassion for Jesus. No. His suffering appears to be a matter of indifference to them. All they are concerned about are the observers, not one word for Jesus. So, essentially, they condemn a film for showing observers doing exactly what they themselves are doing.

This criticism presumes that there were actually Jewish observers of the torture who were moved by compassion for His agony. Is this a reasonable expectation? In our largely secular world, perhaps it would be. If someone came along today and claimed to be God incarnate, he would be viewed with bemused tolerance. But first century Jerusalem was not home to a secular Jewish population. They were a highly religious people, to whom a claim of divinity would have been the highest blasphemy. For such a sin, the man would be seen as deserving of the greatest pain and suffering. So, it would not be reasonable to expect a lot of sympathy for Jesus in the crowd, apart from His followers. Unless, of course, one rewrites the rest of the gospel accounts to take away what He said about Himself.

The quotation from Matthew, "Let his blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25 NIV), is a really strange criticism. This is usually refered to as a curse on the Jewish people past, present, and forever. According to Christian theology, it is Jesus' blood, and only His blood, that washes away our sin and brings us salvation. So the effect of this "curse", if it had any impact, would be to bring everlasting life to all who fall under it. And this is, somehow, a bad thing? I understand that the problem is historical: in the distant, and not-so-distant, past, this "curse" has been used to justify anti-Semitic beliefs. Because of this past usage, the concern is that anti-Semitic views will be rekindled by reminding some viewers of this statement. But there is a problem with this concern. Actually, there are two problems. First of all, this "curse" is recorded for all time in the gospel of Matthew, so it is not like this film is the first and only time someone will come across it. But more importantly, this line of reasoning presumes that anti-Semitism is a logical conclusion based on rational thought. Essentially, this reasoning envisions dispassionate viewers hearing this line for the first time, and concluding, "Oh! I didn't know that. I guess those Jews are pretty evil. I now realize I need to hate them." It is downright silly. People are anti-Semitic because they are anti-Semitic. There's no rhyme or reason to it, anymore than a Klansman has any rational basis for being a racist. They just are. And they grasp at anything to try to justify their beliefs. Such people do not need a film like The Passion of the Christ to be anti-Semites. Therefore, this is a pretty weak criticism.

Last updated 02/06/2004 03:08 PM