Gibson film ignores vow to remove blood libel

[kskiska]

Director keeps in infamous line - but in Aramaic only

Mel Gibson has reneged on a promise to remove the infamous scriptural blood libel, in which the Jews allegedly accepted responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, from his film The Passion of the Christ, according to one of the world's foremost scholars, who saw a preview showing yesterday.

Jewish groups pleaded with the director to remove the line from Matthew 27 in which the Jews were said to have cried: "His blood be on us and on our children" - words used across the ages to justify anti-semitic persecution by Christians.

But it became clear at the film's first British screening for journalists, theologians and clergy that although Gibson has removed the English subtitle for the line, the words remain in the film, exclaimed in Aramaic. Although few in the audience will understand it, the decision to retain the line makes clear Gibson's reluctance to be swayed by the fears of complainants.

Geza Vermes, a former professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford and the author of five books on the life of Christ, writes of the film in today's Guardian: "I have never seen anything so dreadful and I hope I never will."

more…
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1157484,00.html

[mobuto]

1. I knew it!

Although few in the audience will understand it, the decision to retain the line makes clear Gibson's reluctance to be swayed by the fears of complainants.

Aramaic-speaking Talmudic scholars and Assyrian Christians will be motivated to attack Jews by the inclusion of the vicious blood libel!

Actually, I don't think the Aramaic words really matter. Jesus could be talking about President's Day Car Sales and few would be the wiser. The message carried in the visuals and subtitles is far more important - and dangerous.

[salin]

4. but it does sorta give a little insight

into Mel's determination to send a particular message - one denied, of course, but apparently present in various directorial decisions.

[mobuto]

6. Sure

I think the evidence is clear - that Mel Gibson is a nut with an axe to grind. But intentions are less important than results - and the results of having a slur in an obscure language are going to be extremely slight. Of all the things to get worked up about regarding this stupid movie, this has to be the least.

[ender]

8. you're underestimating this...

see post below.

[salin]

11. In terms of impact

I think you are correct.

[loudnclear]

9. Is that line in Scripture (the Bible) or not?

It is clear from the Scripture that I read that the Romans crucified Jesus at the request of the Jews lead by the Jewish clergy.

I can understand those who do not believe in the Holy Bible (non-Christians) complaining about the gospels but the Scripture speaks for itsself. I can also understand Muslims not wanting to accept some of the teachings of the Torah and Jews not wanting to accept teachings of Islam or Christianity. So what is the big deal here. They all disagree with each other. Everything that is being said about this movie can be said about just about any other movie...remember the old westerns and the 'cowboys and Indians?' There isn't a movie around that does not offend some segment of society. The charges of 'anti-Semitism' are over the edge. You might as well call the entire New Testament an anit-Semitic document and Jesus, although a Jew, would be the biggest anti-Semite of all if you believe what some of the Rabbis are saying about this movie.

[regnaD kciN]

15. You unwittingly provide a fine example of the problem...

It is clear from the Scripture that I read that the Romans crucified Jesus at the request of the Jews lead by the Jewish clergy.

Actually, even if you take the Scriptures literally and inerrantly, the most you can say is that "the Romans crucified Jesus at the request of the Temple priests" (or, as you put it "the Jewish clergy"...or at least the "Jewish clergy at the Jerusalem Temple").

However, you phrase it differently, as "...at the request of the Jews led by the Jewish clergy."

Don't you see the difference between the two? In one case, those who acted to put Jesus to death were a small group of entrenched leaders and administrators, themselves installed by the Roman officials. In the other case, it's a vast, amorphous group called "the Jews," at least encompassing all Jews (except the ones who were "smart enough to convert," that is) of the time, at most including all Jews from then until the modern day.

A lot of innocent blood has been spilled over that rather casual distinction in the use of words, it seems to me...

:-(

[Nihil]

19. And vice versa

> Actually, even if you take the Scriptures literally and inerrantly,
> the most you can say is that "the Romans crucified Jesus at the
> request of the Temple priests" (or, as you put it "the Jewish
> clergy"...or at least the "Jewish clergy at the Jerusalem Temple").
>
> However, you phrase it differently, as "...at the request of the
> Jews led by the Jewish clergy."

Quick flick into the KJV finds the gospel of Matthew:

027:020 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that
they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
...
027:022 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which
is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
...
027:025 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us,
and on our children.

Seems to me that the previous poster did not "unwittingly provide a
fine example of the problem" but accurately stated the view that it
is the SOURCE material (the gospel) that spreads this so-called
"blood libel", not the film. You, on the other hand, appear to have
ignored the stated view and jumped instead to the defence against
the "blood libel" itself.

On a wider point, why is this one (foreign language) line being blown
out of all proportion? How many people who choose to see that film
will understand it? How many films have the word "nigger" in them?
How many films have the word "queer"? How about "Kraut", "Frog",
"Limey", "Yank", etc.? How about blasphemy (of many religions)?
How about visual exploitation of women, men, children, donkeys, ...?

Talk about "mountain out of a molehill" ...

Nihil

[regnaD kciN]

14. The point being, of course...

...that each country's distributor will choose whether or not to subtitle that line in that country's language. I wonder whether subtitles for that line will be visible in countries with known histories of anti-Semitism, like Germany, Poland, Austria, and Russia.

:scared:

[rocktivity]

2. Who died and made him God?

:headbang:
rocknation

[NashVegas]

3. You Know What? So What?

It's time for liberals to remember the old strategy that worked so well:

"Give them enough rope to hang themselves."

[ender]

7. yes, but this is playing with matches ...

It's time for liberals to remember the old strategy that worked so well:

"Give them enough rope to hang themselves."

look - the Catholic Church reformed the Passion Play because it most definitely promoted anti-semitism.

Gibson has included the nasty bits and pieces that were removed. After promising to remove them.

yeh, yeh they're in aramaic - until the bus ride home when the preacher translates it for everyone.

mayeb now, we'll just here the bigots mumble it in aramaic.

[lazarus]

10. The other problem

This film is going to be shown elsewhere. How difficult will it be to put that line back in in the subtitles, since it's there on film?

[truthisfreedom]

5. mel's on jay leno right now (central time). he's trying to defend the film

and describing what he experienced over the last year being attacked over the film.

[salin]

12. right... ole Mel playing the victim card.

while running to the bank.

[Tom Kitten]

13. and humming to himself

turn me on dead man, turn me on on dead man...

[regnaD kciN]

16. By the way, I notice in the same article...

...that Franco Zeffirelli, director of the outstanding 1978 Jesus of Nazareth, really slammed Gibson's film. Good for him!

In Rome, the veteran Italian film director Franco Zeffirelli, who himself made a controversial film about the life of Christ, said Gibson was "sinisterly attracted to the most unrestrained violence".

In an article for the newspaper Corriere della Sera, Zeffirelli wrote: "(In America) mothers want at all costs for their children to see the film... What conclusion will children in particular be able to draw from it other than that the Jews were to blame for all that bloodshed? This way we set ourselves back centuries."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[phrenzy]

17. But The Line WAS There.

I don't understand this ...

I am as FAR from a Christian as you can get. I believe the whole thing is a myth and has virtually no basis in true history.

But the FACT is that this is WRITTEN in the Gospel - I mean - If you have a problem - have a problem with *that* - It's the source material

I find the idea ludicrous whether it comes from Gibson OR the Bible.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. I hesitate to say that also

for fear of being accused of some bigotry.

I read and reread and did some more reading. It is there and to mention it seems to be something that is no politically correct in this day and age and forbidden.

Indeed, slavery was also biblically mandated in this country and the same words that condoned slavery are still in the bible also. The conclusion should be that the book is full of myth, that it is a possibility that Jesus did not exist, that there was political upheave during those times and political prisoners were crucified.

If persons cannot see the reasoning behind that or understand what was going on in Jerusalem at that times or the history of Jersusalem/Israel and connect it to that and those times and if they slump back into "Jews killed Jesus" as a reason to hate Jews, two thousand years later, then that is the fault of their bigoted religion, which taught Christians that bigotry and prejudice from it's beginning,-- for a thousand years or more.

[Voltaire99]

18. Brilliant essay by David Denby here

Nice piece of criticism from the current New Yorker:

http://newyorker.com/critics/cinema/?040301crci_cinema

[bleedingheart]

20. thanks for posting that...

I am going to go see the movie just so I can critique it for myself but I have a feeling I won't enjoy it.

[saltpoint]

22. Great article by Denby.

Great post by Voltaire 99.

Thanks.

[saltpoint]

21. Mel Gibson has the emotional maturity of --

-- a nine-year old.

If that.

[emad]

24. Geza Vermes STILL hasn't published the full text of the Dead Sea

Scrolls, despite having had over 50 years to get it together!

[PATRICK]

25. The basic premise is like "the Americans"

which the world kindly understands as Bush and cronies doing all the dirt. "The Jews" an assortment of collaborating temple cultists who did not support the Pharisees, the idea of the resurrection(from the time of the Maccabees), and were looking out always against prophets and people who might upset the apple cart. The trial was a sham much as our military tribunals are planned to be, with the presence of a few Pharisees on the hastily convened Sanhedrin for legitimacy. One of them, Josephus, risks his life to secure the body and give a burial so decent it stops other depressing prophecies being fulfilled. "the Jews" in the time of Matthew were the Pharisaic authorities building a "fence around the Torah" and sealing a final bitter and disappointing split with Judaeo Christians who had been making efforts to straddle both faiths.

We are not talking about a people but more a political establishment without democratic roots and freeper gangs who carry out their vindictive war against the Christians. That leaves about 95% of the rest who pretty much resemble what we have in this country that can be identified as "Americans" in the larger sense- not just the goons who rob the treasury and drop bombs. The ethnic issue is the result of the wedge these power pols created between two now separate peoples. I think the "Jews" in their misguided revolt settled the hash of the collaborators and the Christians("Jews" and "Gentiles") had to get over the shock of the destruction of the Temple(everyone was expecting Divine intervention although the Maccabean Revolt had settled the failure of absolute Jewish institutions long before.

As usual the issue is not squarely faced. Yes the fraud Caiaphas was the High Priest who condemnation of Jesus was self defeating irony. Yes the Romans ultimately were responsible for squashing any cinders of resistance with casual and programmed brutality. Yes the Christians had more to fear from being outside the pale of Roman law whatever their bitterness toward the keepers of the remaining Jewish institutions and synagogues who cast them their as surely as they had delivered Jesus.

In the sixties we used to call that bogeyman "the Establishment" the power of the "World" perhaps in St. John. In the gutter only are whole peoples insanely objectified. They are taught to serve the delusion and keep within their various warring ghettos.It is the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah that was the most challenging and scandalous to explain to the Gentiles. Paul in Romans makes a belated correction to the pride and hateful division that the split and the rationales turned into.

Worse than that critics have accurately described Gibson's drama as springing form the roots of medieval ignorance, s&m, and prejudice
the nadir of all that distorts the Passion away from its meaning. In keeping with most scripture books, the Gospel narratives are not history at all in our understanding of it, but liturgical texts to convey(sacramentally) spiritual salvific events. When the core meaning or spiritual intent is obscured the shaky historical remnants become nearly valueless awaiting the imprints of the usual crowd of pundits.