Mark Chancey on The Passion of the Christ

Thanks to Mark Elliott for this latest on the Bible and Interpretation Essays on the Passion, now building up to a very valuable collection:

An Unacknowledged Passion
While most Christians are familiar with the stories in the Gospels of Jesus’ arrest, trial, torture, and crucifixion, they are less familiar with how those same stories have been used throughout history to justify not only anti-Jewish sentiment but, at times, violent persecution of Jews.
By Mark A. Chancey
Department of Religious Studies
Southern Methodist University
March 2004

Chancey's article is an excellent exposition of the appalling history of Christian anti-Semitism, aimed at those who are cannot understand the fuss about The Passion of the Christ. "Understanding why aspects of this movie could be seen as anti-Semitic," he says, "requires understanding the unfortunate role Christianity has played in the historical development of anti-Semitism." I am grateful for Chancey's careful tone -- he avoids the excessive and unhelpful rhetoric that some of the film's critics have used. It is also particularly useful to have a well presented summary of some of the worse episodes in Christian anti-Semitism. Chancey summarises:

It is within this larger context that the furor over Gibson’s movie must be understood. The types of anti-Jewish sentiments mentioned above are foreign to most American Christians today, most of whom who have never heard of “deicide,” “blood libel,” or the ad versos Judaeos tradition. Many Christian denominations have issued official statements repudiating the deicide charge and committing themselves to fighting anti-Semitism. The fact that so many Christians have not regarded Gibson’s movie as problematic is in many ways a sign of progress on this front: most Christians are not carrying anti-Semitism with them into the theater, and they are not finding it on the screen once they get there.

Perhaps because I am a born optimist, I find this last comment particularly encouraging. But Chancey goes on:

”Most” is not the same as “all,” however. If some people can read The DaVinci Code and then believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, it requires no stretch of the imagination to think that at least a few viewers will believe Gibson’s movie is an accurate portrayal of events. They will see Gibson’s whitewashing of Pilate and his vilification of the Jews, points on which the movie goes well beyond what we find in the Gospels, and walk out thinking about how vicious “those Jews” were. The anti-Semitic slur “Christ-killer,” though repeated less frequently now than in decades past, is still heard. The minority of viewers who already harbor anti-Semitic feelings may well walk away feeling validated, having just witnessed “the Jews” kill Jesus on the movie screen. Those who still hold to the view that all Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, and the view does still circulate in some sectors of American Christianity; will find nothing but confirmation of that belief in this movie.

Now having made those positive comments about Chancey's article overall, there are some elements in this paragraph that I find a little troubling. The first is the use of the term "the Jews" in inverted commas. As I have commented previously, some care is necessary here. As is well known, the Fourth Gospel does repeatedly characterise a body it calls "the Jews" in a very negative fashion. But The Passion of the Christ, in spite of what one reads in some articles and reviews, never does this. Indeed the only time that the term "Jew" is used, it is used in positive contexts, with reference to Jesus and to Simon of Cyrene. So we need to be careful about importing terminology into the film that is not found there. It is because the issue of anti-Semitism is so important that we should strive for accuracy in commenting on this film (and not just this film, of course).

Chancey's comments on the film's relationship to the Gospels overstate the case. In the passage quoted above, he writes, "They will see Gibson’s whitewashing of Pilate and his vilification of the Jews, points on which the movie goes well beyond what we find in the Gospels, and walk out thinking about how vicious “those Jews” were." But does the film go "well beyond what we find in the Gospels" here? I don't think so. It pulls back considerably not only on John's language, already mentioned, but steers well clear of the possible implication in Luke that the Romans had little to do with Jesus' death. Lines that are spoken by the crowd(s) especially in Matthew are transferred solely to Caiaphas in the film. As I have frequently commented before, I wish that Gibson had taken more care here. In particular, I wish he had taken seriously the need for an advisory board of academics who would themselves be accountable. But I am also keen that when we discuss what is in the film we do so as accurately as possible. As scholars, it is important that we set the standard on these issues, and show both the film-makers and the media reporters how importantly we regard care, accuracy and fairness.

Jim Davila also comments in Paleojudaica.