My history's not that great, but after I looked into it a little, it seemed that the film was also fairly revisionistic: here's a slightly histrionic, but interesting article on that.
Woof. This guy's problem isn't really with the movie. His problem is with the Bible and what he considers the historic view of it. I don't know enough Bible history (because I'm not yet good enough at practicing my faith) to refute things like "Luke and Matthew based their own Gospels largely on Mark". From what I've heard, this particular statement is based in truth, but a horrible oversimplification.
The real crux of this guys argument is that Pilate was horrible and that the Gospel is implausible. He's right on the first count. The Bible doesn't tell the whole story of Pilate, and the movie makes the guy out to be a saint. He's not really a major player, so the texts that were included in the Bible don't dwell on him, and his motivations for trying to spare Jesus when Romans killed so many others are unknown. The choice to make him look like a hero in the movie was a bad one, but not a horrible racist one.
To convince people the Bible is implausible, Rabbi Boteach quotes: "And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'" How plausible does this scene appear to the discerning mind?" This is mob mentality and entirely possible. The people were saying that they were sure they were doing the right thing. They were saying, we're so right that may lightning strike us if we're wrong. We're so sure, we want to be held accountable and our children to be held accountable.
At some point, Christians took this to mean, "Let it be known that we, the Jews, are killing this guy and so from now on it's fair game to kill our descendents and take their stuff." This is not what the tiny crowd of Jewish people meant that day, and even if they did, the nation of Israel was freaking huge and this miniscule group of city-slicker Jerusalemites can't possibly speak for the 12 Tribes.
You'll notice that throughout history, Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean 'kill Jews and others' when it was financially helpful to do so. Because of religious an societal restrictions on medieval Christians (such as the ban on usury) and the Jewish culture's propensity toward higher education, many Jews in the middle ages rose in stature to a wealthy merchant class. This prompted greedy neighbors to claim things like "All our problems are caused by Jews, and Christ wants us to kill them." When they succeeded in rousing the rabble with Passion plays (like this movie but with
real racism), they slaughtered their Jewish neighbors and took their wealth. This was especially easy because in many cases the rabble what was roused owed thier victims money. My contention is that the passage quoted was not meant to incite racism, but actually happened. The racism part was added later.
"Firstly, the very same Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was accorded an enthusiastic welcome to Jerusalem by the Jews just five days earlier. But aside from this glaring contradiction...It's not a contradiction. How many people lived in Jerusalem. How many of these welcomed Jesus? How many of them demaded his death later that week? How many didn't do either? Not all people within a community agree on who is the Messiah and who should be put to death. Heck, our community can't even agree on whether or not our leader was properly elected.
"The simple and undeniable fact is that Jesus was condemned in a Roman court on a Roman charge, and put to death by a method of execution used only by the Romans, just as the two leading historians of the time, Josephus and Tacitus, expressly maintain."That fact is certainly not undeniable as the word of two historians over two thousand years ago don't hold any more water than third hand reports from the National Enquirer. Just as 'holy texts' do, historians in any time often get things wrong, especially when it is politically helpful to them to do so. I maintain that the fact is that Jesus was
willingly put to death without interference from his followers, by Roman soldiers, at the order of a Roman governor, under the duress of an angry mob, who had been riled up by certain powerful leaders of an organized religion, who in turn had been helped by one Jesus' own friends, as was the plan of the Almighty. Who do you blame for all that? If you blame the Jews, chances are you're not Christian.
--
I hope this hasn't been to ranty or long winded. I felt that the Rabbi's column deserved some rebuttal. Again, this may belong in the study.
Author
Topic: The Passion of Christ (Read 4772 times)