Anti-Semitism in The PassionTrevor Peterson

2004

1 New Testament1.1 Matt 27:25Problem: A lot has been said about the oath that was spoken in the film inAramaic but for whatever reason was not subtitled. After Pilate washes hishands, the GNT indicates that all the people said, Τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν (Matt 27:25). This statement can easily be taken to mean(and has been so taken throughout much of Church history) that the Jewsforever bear the guilt of Jesus’s death, to the point that they are viewed as acursed people. That it was removed from the subtitles is little consolationto those who are bothered by it. The amount of publicity surroundingits removal has ensured that most people are aware of its presence, evenwithout knowing Aramaic.

Response: I think that perhaps the first thing we need to clarify is thatthere is no curse here. It is an assignment of blame, but we should not takeit further than necessary. Also, I think there is something to be learned bylooking at Matt 23:29–33. Here, instead of looking at the present genera-tion and forward to their descendants, Jesus looks at the present generationand back to their ancestors. When he indicts the scribes and Pharisees fortheir connection to those who killed the prophets, he is not talking aboutsome curse passed down by bloodline; if that were the case, it would behard to avoid implicating all Jews of his generation, including himself andhis own disciples. The connection is not one of blood but of shared attitude.The Pharisees claimed as their ancestors those who killed the prophets, andbecause of their hypocrisy established an ironic connection even as theytried to distance themselves from the earlier offence. This treatment fol-lows the teaching of Rabbinic Judaism, that descendants cannot claim a

1

share in the blessing or cursing that applies to their ancestors, unless theyshare the same heart condition. So whatever is accomplished by this state-ment before Pilate, it cannot implicate all Jews ever after, regardless oftheir internal condition.

The crucial categories, then, are not of ethnicity or bloodline, butof heart response to the gospel. And this is precisely the message ofChristianity—that salvation depends not on lineage but on choice. Jewsare not right with God by virtue of being Jewish, but neither are they con-demned by virtue of being Jewish. The distinctive thing to see about thecrowd that claimed his blood is that they had rejected his message, not thatthey belonged to a particular people group. The only Christians there wereat the time were also Jewish—the difference is that they believed. In thesame way, later generations stand or fall based on how they respond to thegospel, not who their ancestors were.

1.2 1 Thess 2:14–16Problem: Another passage that drew special attention from its use by achurch sign at the opening of the film is 1 Thess 2:14–16:

ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκ κλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶνοὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖςὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, τῶν καὶτὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξά-ντων, καὶ θεῶ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων, καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων, κωλυόντωνἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰςἁμαρτίας πάντοτε. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.

This passage not only blames the Jews for killing Jesus but also pronouncessevere wrath on them for their persecution of Christians.

Response: Here, again, I think we need to think carefully about what isactually being said and who is saying it. Paul himself is a Jew and knowsit, even as he writes these words. When he writes about the believers inJudea who underwent persecution, he is also writing primarily about Jews.In this passage, he refers explicitly to Jews only once, and that in a veryclear correlation with Gentiles. The statement is that these believers inThessalonica have experienced persecution from their fellow Thessaloni-ans, just as believers in Judea experienced persecution from their fellowJews. (Indeed, it could arguably be translated that the believers in Judea

2

were persecuted by Judeans, putting the stress more squarely on geograph-ical idenitity, and reinforcing the parallel.) So the Jews (or Judeans) thatPaul has in mind are those opposed to the gospel who persecuted their fel-low Judeans (who were Christians), not Jews in general as a race of people.It seems natural to me that what Paul says about their sin and judgment isexpressed here particularly to remind the Thessalonians that God will alsodeal with those who are persectuing them, and that it is their job simplyto endure. In other words, the strong remarks in v. 16 apply just as muchto the Gentile persecutors of Thessalonica as to the Jewish persecutors ofJudea. It is not an ethnic issue.

1.3 Truth of the New TestamentProblem: Some Jews argue that the Gospel accounts are fabricated sto-ries from beginning to end. Others take a more nuanced approach, arguingthat they were written at a time when the risk was too great to impugn Ro-man authorities with the death of Jesus. Pilate was therefore made to lookreluctant, and the Jews to look like the real perpetrators. They argue that ahistorically sensitive portrayal should account for these circumstances andwhat we know otherwise of Pilate himself, to come up with a more accuratepresentation.

Response: I do not think it is for this discussion to argue whether theNT is historically accurate or not. I realize Gibson has tried to argue thatwhatever anti-Semitism people might perceive in his film is simply a factorof presenting historical reality, but it seems to me that there is an impos-sible contradiction here. Either he should be permitted artistic license toadd things that cannot be inferred from documentary or archaeological evi-dence for the sake of making a good film, or he should claim to present onlyfacts. He cannot have it both ways, and personally I think the latter claimwould be impossible to substantiate for this kind of project. A somewhatbetter argument is to say that he accepts what the Gospels say as accurateand has tried to base his portrayal on this assumption. This does not haveto mean that he can present only what is explicitly indicated in the Gospels,but it does allow for him to retain the basic notion that there was Jewishpressure exerted on Pilate to crucify Jesus. There is nothing specificallyanti-Semitic about preserving this notion in a film rendition. Nor, for thatmatter, would it necessarily have been anti-Semitic of the Gospel writersto distort the picture in this way (assuming for the sake of argument that

3

they in fact did). If they truly were motivated by fear of Roman retali-ation and felt that it was the only way to detract from the culpability ofRoman authorities, we could say they were cowards but not necessarilyanti-Semitic. Granted, it could still be argued that their portrayal wouldfuel anti-Semitism, but still there would be no intentional anti-Semitism onthe part of either the NT writers or Gibson himself.

This response is less than it might be, because I have chosen not toaddress head-on the question of whether the NT writers distorted the waythings really happened to cast Pilate in a better light and the Jewish leadersin a worse. I think it diminishes the probability of intentional anti-Semitismin the process that led to what we see in the film, but it leaves open thepossibility of unintentional anti-Semitism, which can be a serious problemin itself. I think we should be honest about this possibility and stress theimportance of scrutinizing the NT portrayal. If we conclude that the roleassigned to the Jewish leaders is basically accurate, at least we can say whywe believe that. If we conclude that is is not, we have a responsibility toarticulate a more correct account. But if we ignore the issue altogether,that is a problem.

2 HistoryProblem: The thematic connection with European passion plays is un-avoidable. Focusing on the death of Jesus led to animosity toward the Jewsas his killers. Hitler even commended the passion play as a means of stir-ring up proper feelings toward the Jews. The degree of violence portrayedin the film surpasses anything previously possible and therefore carries aneven greater potential for fostering anti-Semitic resentment.

Response: I think this is a legitimate concern. Not that the passion playswere necessarily started for an anti-Semitic purpose, but one way or an-other, they did help to foster anti-Semitism. Whether it was anyone’s in-tention to send an anti-Semitic message with this film, the same thing couldvery well happen. Even if we did not acknowledge that the film could evokehatred toward Jews for the events it portrays, we would have to admit thata person who sits down to watch it already hating Jews will probably leavehating them even more. Objecting that we are different today from the Eu-rope of 75 years ago is a cop-out. Anti-Semitism is not a dead issue, and themoment we begin thinking that it is, we will find ourselves in the greatestdanger of embracing it. More on this below.

4

3 Mel Gibson3.1 His SectProblem: Gibson’s sect rejects the reforms of Vatican II, which includeda condemnation of earlier anti-Semitic thinking:

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church,it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of theNew Covenant to Abraham’s stock. Thus the Church of Christacknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the begin-nings of her faith and her election are found already among thePatriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all whobelieve in Christ—Abraham’s sons according to faith (cf. Gal.3:7)—are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewisethat the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowedby the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. TheChurch, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revela-tion of the Old Testament through the people with whom God inHis inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Norcan she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of thatwell-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wildshoots, the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 11:17–24). Indeed, the Churchbelieves that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews andGentiles, making both one in Himself (cf. Eph. 2:14–16). TheChurch keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about hiskinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenantsand the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fa-thers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom.9:4–5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that theApostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most ofthe early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world,sprang from the Jewish people.As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the timeof her visitation (cf. Lk. 19:44), nor did the Jews in large num-ber, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading(cf. Rom. 11:28). Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dearfor the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts Hemakes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle(cf. Rom. 11:28–29; cf. dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium

5

(Light of nations) AAS, 57 (1965) pag. 20). In company withthe Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day,known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lordin a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph.3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11–32).Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews isthus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommendthat mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, aboveall, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternaldialogues.True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their leadpressed for the death of Christ (cf. John 19:6); still, what hap-pened 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 shouldnot be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this fol-lowed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, thatin catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God theydo not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of theGospel and the spirit of Christ.Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against anyman, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with theJews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’sspiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christunderwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins ofmen and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salva-tion. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching toproclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracinglove and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

Response: This is a legitimate concern. Gibson’s rejection of Vatican IIdoes not necessarily make him anti-Semitic, any more than a person whoobjects to gun control is necessarily a violent criminal. (We might alsopoint out that Evangelicals do not accept Vatican II either, which does notnecessarily make us anti-Semitic.) Still, in light of the history between theCatholic Church and Jews, it is understandable that they would be con-

6

cerned about a Catholic who explicitly denies the most ground-breakingstatement that institution has ever made on this issue.

3.2 His FatherProblem: Gibson’s father is a known anti-Semite who has denied theHolocaust.

Response: Although Mel Gibson’s views may not be those of his father,it is problematic that he has not repudiated any of his father’s statements.To be sure, blood is thicker than water; if he does not want to criticizehis father’s views in public, that is his business. But to the extent that thisloyalty prevents him from explicating his own views, it is reasonable forpeople to be suspicious of them.

3.3 His InspirationProblem: Gibson’s making of the film was influenced by the visions ofAnne-Catherine Emmerich, also known for her anti-Semitism. Many of thedetails not found in the Gospels were drawn from her.

Response: It has been argued that Emmerich’s anti-Semitism was not sovery different from that of her contemporaries. This may be a healthy cor-rective to how we think about her as an individual, but it does not changethe fact that her writings about Jews would not be allowed under VaticanII. It also does not give a modern filmmaker license to draw on her workindiscriminately and ignore the implications.

4 The Film4.1 Pontius PilateProblem: In addition to his too-positive portrayal from the NT, Pilate’sreluctance to crucify Jesus is accentuated in the film. He is portrayed asafraid of the Jews and becomes a pawn in their plot.

Response: Pilate’s portrayal is indeed rather sympathetic, more so thanin the NT. The conversation with his wife, in which he worries that hewill be punished for allowing another uprising, is unfounded in the NT and

7

probably runs counter to what we learn about Pilate from other sources.Granted, there would have been no way to portray him in the film as openlyhostile toward Jesus, but if he had beenmerely disinterested with the wholeaffair, colder, less sympathetic, the contrast with the Jewish leaders wouldnot have been as strong.

4.2 Caiaphas the High PriestProblem: Caiaphas, on the other hand, is clearly in charge of the pro-ceedings. No hint is given that he is the least bit reluctant or concernedabout the consequences. His precise issues with Jesus are not even clear.

Response: The Gospels indeed provide us with more insight into Ca-iaphas’s motivation. (Even Jesus Christ Superstar recalls for us Caiaphas’srationalization, that it would be better to get rid of this one man than tolet the whole nation fall.) There is plenty of room to suggest internal con-flicts on his part, as we find in so many portrayals of Pilate. Instead, he ispresented as rather calloused to the whole proceeding.

4.3 The Chief PriestsProblem: Like Caiaphas, the chief priests in general are visibly presentand hardened at Jesus’s flogging and crucifixion. They are visually associ-ated with Satan in their reaction at the end of the film. This last view isin contrast with the worshipful, repentant attitude exhibited by the Romansoldiers.

Response: There is no clear reason to put the priests at these events,particularly since purity regulations would probably have prevented themfrom attending. It strengthens the impression that his enemies truly hatehim, and it does provide an opportunity to show that even they must flinchat watching his beating; but clearly their disgust does not overcome theirresolve, and they appear just as stone-faced as ever when he is finally hungon the cross. Their reaction at the destruction of the temple upon his deathis also unnecessary. Perhaps they did in fact react this way to see the templeveil torn, but the juxtaposition does align themmore closely than necessarywith Satan.

8

4.4 Demonic PresenceProblem: The demonic associations with the Jews go still further, as Sa-tan is seen to walk in the midst of the Jewish priests and crowds. Thedemons who drive Judas to his death also appear as Jewish children.

Response: Although the Gospels do not specifically address the presenceof Satan in these various situations, they do indicate that he played a rolein the events. He controlled Judas when he chose to betray Jesus (but notnecessarily when he killed himself), and it is reasonable to think that ifSatan tried to dissuade Jesus from his mission earlier in the wilderness,he was probably also present in the garden. Putting him in with the Jewscan be taken different ways. One might perceive it to mean that the peo-ple who were lashing out at Jesus were not doing so because they wereintrinsically evil themselves but because they were manipulated by Satan.Another might instead stress the notion of Satanic control and see an evilassociation with the people themselves. The problem is that the responsedepends largely on preconceptions.

4.5 ViolenceProblem: Excessive violence is portrayed on the part of the Jews. Jesus’sfall from the bridge after his arrest is nowhere in the Gospel accounts. Sim-ilarly, there is no precedent for the Jews abusing Jesus along the road tohis death.

Response: The danger here is that people will lose sight of importantdistinctions and see the Jews as more or less monolithic in their hatred.Granted, it could be argued that these violent reactions were sparked bythe deeper hatred for Jesus on the part of the leadership; but the film doesnot make that clear. Instead, we see a lot of bystanders who react violentlyfor no apparent reason. Perhaps it is simply the nature of crowds to respondthis way when they see a condemned criminal going by, but it is not muchmore difficult to assume that it is simply the nature of Jews to react thisway. What the film does not show is whether the majority of Jews had nointerest whatsoever in the proceedings. Instead, our attention is drawn tothose who reacted negatively (and a small, weak remnant who were clearlyon his side), which makes for a well-established conflict but in the processtends to polarize our impression of the events.

9

4.6 Lack of BackgroundProblem: All of this hatred comes across as irrational, because no sub-stantive background is provided. Aside from the vague charges at the Jew-ish hearing (which presupposes a prior history of animosity), nothing isshown about Jesus that would provoke anyone to want him dead. Pilate’sreluctance and confusion is a voice for the audience, who are also baffledby the senselessness. The resulting impression is that the Jews’ actions arecompletely unjustified. There is no room for the audience to sympathizewith their concerns. They are simply evil.

Response: Call it good film-making if you must, but the problem is real.It is all well and good for Christians to contemplate the death of Jesusas an isolated event, but we always do so with the full context in mind.Even so, we should be wary of the danger that waits even for us. If wespend too much time on this one event, it is easy to come away hatingthe perpetrators. And this seems to have been part of the problem withthe European passion plays as well. The death of Jesus makes sense for uson various levels, all of them set against the background of redemption.If we lose sight of that background, it is just a violent act perpetrated hisenemies. But why are they his enemies in the first place? The film providesvery little answer to this question. In a sense, it is unimportant, becausewe can see the world as polarized into those who are for Jesus and thosewho are against him. Also, Christians have the advantage of knowing whatit was about him that got his enemies so worked up. But should a filmdepend so heavily on this background understanding? As we lose ourselvesin the moment, it is easy to forget the complexities and layers, to see onlysome very angry people acting out their anger in very violent ways. Andas soon as the violence and anger seem senseless, we have little to preventus from concluding that these are basically evil people. When rationalChristians watch it and contemplate it, we might come away thinking thatthese basically evil people who put him to death are what we would bewithout our faith. But that does not preclude the possibility that otherswill come away angry at the Jews for what they did to Jesus.

4.7 Physical Depiction of JewsProblem: The physical depiction of the Jewish leaders strengthens thissinister impression. They are fat, while the Romans are trim. Their facesare dark; their noses are hooked, like the medieval stereotype. Their East-

10

ern European earlocks and prayer shawls ensure a direct connection withtoday’s Orthodox Jews. Jesus’s own appearance is more alignedwith that ofthe Romans—too tall for a first-century Jew, straight nose, trim physique—which compounds with his use of Latin (for those who can observe thedistinction) to set him apart from his accusers.

Response: I don’t know that there was any negative intention in makingthe Jewish leaders look specifically Jewish. The particular features stressedcould have been historically inaccurate as a result of genuinely mistakengood intentions. Arguably, something like the difference in physique couldhave been a real distinction and given completely different impressions inits own context than it would give to a modern audience. Many cultures atvarious times have considered fatness a mark of importance; biblical termi-nology even favors this kind of association. Nevertheless, it is somethingto think about when making a film that a modern audience will react ac-cording to its own norms. As for Jesus’s appearance, this is a consistentproblem in visual portrayals. There is a good deal more sensitivity to thisissue now than there has been in the past, but in the same way that Gibsonapparently retained the traditional design of the cross that Jesus carried be-cause it is traditional, he may have been reluctant to depart too much fromwhat Christians traditionally envision when they think of Jesus. At somepoint, though, this traditional consideration must be weighed against theeffect of suggesting that Jesus is himself more European and less Semitic.The language issue is, of course, completely imagined and could probablyhave been minimized significantly if Gibson had included Greek.

4.8 Missing Jewish ElementsProblem: Even though the Jewish leaders are associated visually withmodern Jews, some characteristically Jewish elements are omitted fromthe proceedings. In particular, an explicit charge and a proper trial wouldhave been required by Rabbinic law. By omitting such matters of propri-ety, only those elements of Jewishness that help to strengthen the negativeimpression remain. Also, no hint is given of the factions that existed withinJudaism, which would have served to emphasize that Christianity was verymuch one such Jewish faction, and could also have helped to show that theJewish response to Jesus was far from monolithic.

11

Response: Not that it would have been essential to pay this much atten-tion to context and accuracy in making a film, but clearly quite a bit ofcare was taken. It is not an easy thing to come up with the whole dialogfor a film in Aramaic and Latin; you have to make a special effort. Clearly,something was known about Roman methods of beating. When details likethis are treated carefully, it looks that much worse to have overlooked de-tails that could make a real difference in the impression people get aboutthe portrayal of Jews in the film. Granted, it could be argued that the NTsuggests a shady trial; but it also doesn’t give much indication that anyonebut the priests condoned it. Since there is no visible presence of the Phar-isees in the film (and since the Pharisees are generally believed to be themore direct ancestors of modern Judaism), the impression one gets is thatall Jews were lumped together.

4.9 Exclusive NatureProblem: Ultimately, the lack of proper background and consequent por-trayal of the Jews creates a divisive experience. Only those who comealready understanding the story and its significance for Christianity, par-ticularly those who accept it as valid, will get the main point. For thosewho come without this preunderstanding, the best possible outcome is be-wilderment at the degree of violence portrayed. For Jews, the outcome canbe much worse and the expectation understandable that Christians who seethe film will hate its antagonists.

Response: It is true, unavoidable, and probably desirable that the gospelcreates a defining boundary between people. Some accept it, some do not.As we see in the Gospels, particularly with Jesus’s parables, many of histeachings could only be properly understood by those on the inside, andthose on the outside were only confirmed in their opposition to the truthwhen they failed to understand. Perhaps it was part of Gibson’s intentionto create a film that would have a similar effect. The problem, however,is that the context has changed. Whereas the early Christians were basi-cally Jewish themselves and recognized that this division was a matter offaith and lack thereof, Christians today mostly identify themselves as Gen-tile. To sit and watch for two hours the animosity and hatred of clearlyJewish people worked out in violence toward their savior certainly has thepotential to polarize audience hatred against Jews in general. This is par-ticularly so, when the only distinction between these enemy Jews and any

12

others that appear in the film is where clearly the latter have converted toChristianity, which tends to make them appear more Gentile. Add to thata rather Gentile looking Jesus who is comfortable speaking in Latin, anda Roman response that is at worst flippant and at best worshipful, and itdoes not seem like such a stretch for Jews to worry that this film will haveeffects similar to those of the old passion plays.

I am not trying to say that the film is without redeeming qualities. Farfrom it, I think it can serve as a powerful instrument for contemplationon the death of Jesus. At the same time, I can understand and sympathizewith the serious concerns of many Jews, that as far as they’re concerned, nogood will come of it. For better or worse, we live in a post-Holocaust world,under the shadow of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. In such a setting,it is rarely possible to ignore the issue; to pretend that it never happened orthat its significance is a thing of the past is just as bad as, if not worse than,being overtly anti-Semitic ourselves. Whatever else this film may be, it is arepackaging of the passion narratives for modern consumption. Wheneverwe engage in such reformulation, we are obligated to do so responsibly, tounderstand the implications of everything we include and everything weomit. Such an approach is not to diminish the gospel; on the contrary,we clarify the message of Christ by stripping away the prejudices of thepast. What Paul wrote 2000 years ago is still true today. The gospel is notabout race—it never has been, and it never should be. Whatever gives theimpression that it is can only diminish from the truth—that it is faith inresponse to God’s grace, and nothing else.

13