 Let us first address the "Jewishness" question raised by Hornaday. The
very opening line of the Blessed Virgin Mary-played by Jewish actress Maia
Morgenstern-is a hauntingly beautiful asking of the Jewish Passover question
"What is the significance of this night?" To which Mary Magdalene gives the
traditional response. Though in a different context than the celebration of
the Passover meal, the question brings out the heart of the theological
relationship between Jesus' completion of his messianic mission and the
fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. Some of the most powerful
dialogue added to the Gospel accounts are drawn directly from the Jewish
Scriptures. Jesus' conversation with the Father and with his mother all draw
from quintessentially Jewish sources. One might add the use of Aramaic also
helps to draw this out as well! Gibson's treatment of the Last Supper and
its connection to both the Jewish Passover and the Crucifixion bridges the
transition from the Old to the New Covenant, from the Jewish to the
Christian dispensations. Early Christianity cannot be portrayed except in
reference to Judaism. Gibson understands this point well.
As we continue to examine this question, let us keep in mind the
distinction between those whose real beef is with the canonical Gospels and
not just with Mel Gibson. Quite faithful to the Gospel presentations, Gibson
portrays Jesus' two trials and the stages of his punishments leading up to
his crucifixion and death. I am sorry that Sullivan has a problem with the
image of Judas and his bag of silver, but this played an important role in
the betrayal of Jesus. It was the fulfillment of a prophecy and it was a
factor in Judas' subsequent implosion, which was also vividly depicted by
Gibson, though Sullivan fails to note this.
In the Gospels, and likewise in the movie, the Chief Priests, the High
Priest Caiaphas and the elders are uniformly portrayed as desirous to put
Jesus to death. The USCCB review has failed to note this. This desire began
long before the arrest of Jesus that night, and attempts to "trip Jesus up"
are seen regularly in the last year of Jesus' public ministry in the
Gospels. In the final version of this film, Gibson actually has a few
members of the Sanhedrin boldly protest the injustice of Jesus' trial-which
doesn't take place in the Bible. Gibson does not make up the hatred directed
toward Jesus by the religious leaders of the Jews. It is in the Gospels.
To acknowledge this is not anti-Semitism. As some have pointed out, from
a Jewish perspective, one sees the carrying out of a deeply held religious
conviction to its logical conclusion. Even Caiaphas, in the Bible and in the
movie, doesn't "convict" Jesus on the basis of the false testimonies
rendered, but on Jesus' own answer to the question posed to him about being
the Messiah. True, the underlying motive of envy is ignoble-it is one that
Pilate recognizes in the Gospel texts (cf. Mt 27:18 and Mk
15:10)-nonetheless, there remains a certain theological and juridical logic
behind the actions of the Sanhedrin. One thing is clear in all four Gospels;
Pilate has no blood thirst against Jesus. Pilate would not have even known
about Jesus had he not been brought before him. In the Gospels, as in the
film, Pilate insists that he finds no crime in Jesus (cf.Lk. 23:4, 14;
Jn.18:38, 19:4,6). When the crowd cries out for Jesus' crucifixion, Pilate
asks, "Why, what crime has he done?" (cf Mt. 27:23; Mk. 15:14, Lk 23:22).
Article Pages
[ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ]
|
|
