Crucifying mad Mel

Mel Gibson finds himself in the news, with his production "The Passion". This article by Peter Boyer of the NYT is very illuminating.
Gibson is accused of anti-Semitism. He says he faithfully used the Gospels as his source. His detractors say he didn't "interpret" them correctly.
A couple of points strike me. First, is it anti-Semitic to suggest that Jewish people did a thing or didn't do a thing? It seems that "anti-Semitic" means no more and no less than exactly that. It's "anti-Semitic" of Gibson to suggest that Caiaphas (who I remember well from Sunday school, when I had no idea what a Jew was or wasn't, and no idea what Israel was or wasn't except that it was the place Jesus lived and, as I read more of the Bible, the setting for the wonderful stories it contained) wanted Jesus dead. Yet that's what the Gospels said. Are the Gospels anti-Semitic?
I have no doubt that the idea that all Jews who lived then or since are somehow guilty of something because Jesus was crucified is ridiculously anti-Semitic. But the idea that's it's anti-Semitic to suggest Jews were somehow involved? That's akin to the knee-jerk reaction beloved of Barbara Amiel to any criticism of Israel. Is it anti-Italian to suggest that Mussolini was a bad guy? Anti-Austrian to say that Hitler was born in Linz? I think some people *do* make this connection; they do feel that citizens are microcosms of their states, people representatives in a unit of the nations that they are part of - so that the bad behaviour of one is indicative of an evil of the whole. But it's clearly nonsense to so dismiss the diversity, the colour, the breadth of a group of people with so tenuous a connection as conationality, or coethnicity. (And it is tenuous! I have to laugh to consider that I'm in some way connected to some of the clueless dorks who clutter up the pages of our tabloids with their comings, goings, toings and froings.)
So, let's get it straight. Caiaphas and a bunch of badboy priests might have had Jesus killed for whatever reason, but that no more reflects on Jews as an entity however defined than Hitler's being born in Linz means that Austrians are all child-murdering nutters. (Talking of which, this whole blood taint business is something we still indulge in - the suggestion that Schwarzenegger's dad was a Nazi is seen as somehow a negative for Arnie. What? It's genetic, is it? You inherit a penchant for extreme right politics from your daddy? You are somehow responsible for your parents' beliefs? I note in connection that Gibson himself is held responsible for the reprehensible Holocaust-denying of his father. Well, my dad says some pretty rank things about blacks, gays and Frenchies - where does that leave me?)
Second is the idea that the Bible needs "interpreting".
Check this, from the article:

Among the many errors that Gibson might have avoided had he followed the ecumenist guidelines is his portrayal of the two men who were crucified alongside Jesus as criminals. Although the men, described in Matthew and Mark, are identified as "thieves" in the King James Version of the Bible, as "robbers" in the International and American Standard versions, and as "plunderers" in the original Greek, the Bishops Conference prefers that they be identified as "insurgents."

I'll bet it does! But "plunderers" are not "insurgents", unless my dico is missing a definition. This is like saying Moby Dick was *really* a shark. Okay, so Melville wrote "whale" but this conference has decided he *ought to have* written "shark".
How did Gibson make an error? The book he's adapting says the guys were thieves. If he'd made them, ahem, insurgents, he'd be facing the charge of fiddling with the facts, which so annoyed many critics of Braveheart.
The Bible says what it says. It doesn't matter why it says it. It doesn't matter what the writers intended. Like all texts, it means what we take it to mean. It's not in need of "interpreting" in the sense that the "ecumenists" interpret it. It's not in need of a rewrite that makes the Romans the bad guys, any more than it needs Jesus to be reinterpreted as a potsmoking shagger.
As for Gibson? Probably more misguided than bad. I'm sure his film might feed the anti-Semitism that infests some of the more conservative Christian circles. But in much the same manner flying a Union Jack is seen as feeding the racists here in the UK. This allows the Union Jack only one meaning, and insists that you must be trying to convey that meaning if you fly it, and the same reasoning insists that suggesting Caiaphas had Jesus killed is "anti-Semitic" and to portray it in a film must convey only that meaning...
I'm no apologist for Gibson. I think the guy's beliefs are dangerous. But I deplore the squeezing of meaning and the use of words like "anti-Semitic" to suppress dissent.

posted by Dr Zen @ 1:58 am