Washington Post article

Thanks to Jeff Peterson for the link to this polemical piece from the Washington Post:

Gibson's Blood Libel
By Charles Krauthammer

. . . . His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10 . . . .

This is actually pretty outrageous -- the author is castigating Gibson for a "literalist defense" but his attempt to establish the claim is based on error. All four Gospels mention flogging or scourging (Matt. 27.26 // Mark 15.15, φραγελλόω; Luke 23.16, παιδεύω; John 19.1, μαστιγόω). There is an important difference between Matthew and Mark on the one hand and Luke and John on the other. The first two Gospels have the scourging after the sentence whereas the latter two have it beforehand. But it is incorrect to say that it is absent in Luke.

Krauthammer goes on:

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

I am troubled here about the author's use of the word "the Jews". This, as far as I remember, is not a term used by the film in this antagonistic, Johannine-style way, and to use it in this kind of context is to import something into the film that is not there. Don't get me wrong -- I am no apologist for Gibson and I have repeatedly suggested in this blog that Gibson could have avoided many of the problems he has come up against by appointing a Visual Bible Gospel of John - style advisory committee. But it's now pretty clear to me that a lot of the reporting on alleged anti-semitism in this film is simply nowhere near careful enough. If we are to take the question of alleged anti-semitism seriously, it is essential that attention is paid both to the film itself and to the New Testament text. Sloppy reporting only makes the problem worse. This is a serious issue and it needs to be treated seriously and that involves taking real care to avoid misrepresentation. There is another example in the article, now a familiar motif:

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier.

As I have pointed out before, Gibson's statements in the two relevant interviews (Noonan and Sawyer) are only "chillingly ambiguous" if one ignores "Yes, of course" in the one and "Sure" in the other.