In the interest of disclosure, it is worth stating that I consider myself basically a Christian, but with a somewhat unorthodox perspective. That said, I wanted to address something that I saw on TV recently; specifically, a commentator made a reference to the negative portrayal of Jews in Mel Gibson’s movie from a few years back, “The Passion.” There was a larger context: the point the speaker was trying to make was that Mel Gibson was a hypocrite because he, a literalist, was getting a divorce and he portrayed Jews in such a negative light. I’m not interested in Mel Gibson’s divorce, nor the argument that he is a literalist, rather, I am interested in the portrayal of the Jews as they relate to the crucifixion of Jesus.
First, insofar as the movie is concerned: I think Jesus would have died long before he made it to Golgotha (the place where he was crucified). That, however, is irrelevant. I am not strictly a literalist, yet I believe the movie more-or-less gave a generally accurate account of what happened to Jesus. There are four extant “accepted” Gospels, plus a number of apocryphal ones. Some of the details vary but the general details are that Jesus was a spiritual leader of his time, reputedly capable of working miracles, who was arrested and crucified for “claiming to be a king.” Christians typically believe that his arrest and crucifixion were actually orchestrated by the Jewish religious authorities at the time. The gospels support this belief. At the very least, the involvement of the Jewish religious authorities seems at least “reasonable.”
With all that said, there is one important point that is hardly ever considered by those who wish to pit Christianity against Judaism in the modern world: all those events happened nearly two thousand years ago.
If we accept the Christian gospels as “reasonably accurate” (insofar as the trial and execution are concerned), then we can ask a question: who “won” the moral exchange between Jesus and the Jewish authorities? I think it is quite clear that Jesus did. Jesus went around preaching love, kindness, mercy and forgiveness. The Jewish authorities tried to stop him, couldn’t, so they had him crucified. After being beaten and mocked, and nailed to a cross, in nearly complete and total agony, Jesus looks down at those who have crucified him and asks God to forgive those very men responsible. At that point, he has so absolutely clobbered the Jewish authorities it is absurd. You don’t have to believe in the Resurrection, but if you don’t think that Jesus kicked the Pharisees’ butts all over the place, you have insulted every individual who ever espoused non-violence in any form from Socrates to Gandhi. However, the crucifixion happened two-thousand years ago. Holding modern Jews responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion is stupid and absurd. I don’t think there is a Jewish authority alive today who would support the penalty of crucifixion for the crime of blasphemy.
Anyway, back to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion,” I find it ludicrous that one could seriously take the position that Mel Gibson’s portrayal of the Jewish authorities at the time of Jesus could in any way serve as a condemnation of modern day Jews. That’s like arguing the historical Vikings provide grounds for the condemnation of modern day Iceland. The whole notion is absurd.
