Jesus Films and the 'Jews'

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patrick457

Guest
I don’t know whether this thread should be here or in the Popular Media forum; I’ll leave it for the mods to decide. Also, I think that this topic might be a bit sensitive, so again, I’ll trust the mods to do their work and step in should something nasty occur.

Okay, this is admittedly a topic I’ve been meaning to do for some time: the treatment of Jews in Jesus movies, particularly the Jewish opponents of Jesus like “the Pharisees” or the chief priests. I’m sure many folks will be familiar with the whole controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ and its portrayal of Jews (well, Jews aside from Jesus and His ilk). Admittedly, this issue is somewhat tied with the whole issue of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism within sectors of Christianity and the portrayal of opponents of Jesus and later Christians within the New Testament so this could be a bit of a bumpy ride. But anyways, I do think that it’s better that people have some grasp of the issue.

Since I named TPotC here, I might as well ask folks first who saw it about what they thought about the portrayal of say, Caiaphas or the priests or the Good Friday crowd.
 
I was watching, “the Bible” series and the main antagonist Pharisee didn’t seem as stereotypical as the Passion.
 
I was watching, “the Bible” series and the main antagonist Pharisee didn’t seem as stereotypical as the Passion.
That’s really something to the series’ credit, I’d tell you.
 
Since I named TPotC here, I might as well ask folks first who saw it about what they thought about the portrayal of say, Caiaphas or the priests or the Good Friday crowd.
If a group of people behave like an unruly mob and abuse their position, it matters none whether they are men or women, or whether they belong to a given religious or ethnic group.

The movie depicts the scenes exactly as (or, if you ask me, way nicer than) the Gospels describe it. It is ridiculous to say that there is antisemitism simply because we are depicting what the Gospels describe - are the Gospels anti-semitic, then? Besides, Christ, Our Lady, and the apostles were also Jewish, and we believe that Christ is the Messiah and that everything that took place in the Passion was foreseen in Scripture, so no offense.

Now what about the Romans? They, too, were depicted rather brutally (perhaps more than they would actually have been, or perhaps less). Yet nobody here complains about “anti-ancient-Romanism”. The truth is that most complaints come from sources that ultimately are not sympathetic with Christianity.
 
The truth is that most complaints come from sources that ultimately are not sympathetic with Christianity.
It doesn’t help matters when the source (in the case of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson) goes on multiple anti-Semetic rants. That makes it easy for critics to read into the film messages that may or may not be there.
 
If a group of people behave like an unruly mob and abuse their position, it matters none whether they are men or women, or whether they belong to a given religious or ethnic group.

The movie depicts the scenes exactly as (or, if you ask me, way nicer than) the Gospels describe it. It is ridiculous to say that there is antisemitism simply because we are depicting what the Gospels describe - are the Gospels anti-semitic, then? Besides, Christ, Our Lady, and the apostles were also Jewish, and we believe that Christ is the Messiah and that everything that took place in the Passion was foreseen in Scripture, so no offense.

Now what about the Romans? They, too, were depicted rather brutally (perhaps more than they would actually have been, or perhaps less). Yet nobody here complains about “anti-ancient-Romanism”. The truth is that most complaints come from sources that ultimately are not sympathetic with Christianity.
I couldn’t agree with you more:thumbsup: I would add that not only are the complainers not sympathetic to Christianity but not sympathetic to any religous group.
 
It doesn’t help matters when the source (in the case of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson) goes on multiple anti-Semetic rants. That makes it easy for critics to read into the film messages that may or may not be there.
Mel Gibson has nothing to do with the Gospels. His personal opinions are one thing, the film another. Again, I see much worse depiction of the Romans in that movie than of the Jews, so I really don’t know what’s the complaint about… 🤷
 
Mel Gibson has nothing to do with the Gospels. His personal opinions are one thing, the film another. Again, I see much worse depiction of the Romans in that movie than of the Jews, so I really don’t know what’s the complaint about… 🤷
If a movie were made that showed the real story of the Jersualem High Priesthood going after Jesus and the early Christians, it would make the Gibson movie look like “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.”
 
If a group of people behave like an unruly mob and abuse their position, it matters none whether they are men or women, or whether they belong to a given religious or ethnic group.

The movie depicts the scenes exactly as (or, if you ask me, way nicer than) the Gospels describe it. It is ridiculous to say that there is antisemitism simply because we are depicting what the Gospels describe - are the Gospels anti-semitic, then? Besides, Christ, Our Lady, and the apostles were also Jewish, and we believe that Christ is the Messiah and that everything that took place in the Passion was foreseen in Scripture, so no offense.

Now what about the Romans? They, too, were depicted rather brutally (perhaps more than they would actually have been, or perhaps less). Yet nobody here complains about “anti-ancient-Romanism”. The truth is that most complaints come from sources that ultimately are not sympathetic with Christianity.
This is the kind of reaction I wanted! 😃

There are a few things we need to clarify first here. First off, the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (admittedly a rather controversial one). Simply put, as it is often explained anti-Semitism denotes opposition to Judaism or/and Jews based upon racial or ethnic prejudice, while anti-Judaism is one based on religious beliefs and practices. Yes, it is true that the gospels aren’t ‘anti-Semitic’ (especially in the Nazi sense), but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t anti-Jewish.

I’ll explain. Christian anti-Judaism, somewhat ironically, sprung from a Jewish context. There is a common trend to emphasize Jewish guilt over Jesus’ death starting from the first generations of Christians themselves (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16; Acts 2:22-38; 3:12-26; 4:8-22; 5:29-32). This is based on the traditional Jewish pattern of calling Israel for its disobedience and/or the rejection of its prophets (e.g. Nehemiah 9:26; 2 Chronicles 36:14-16). To reject the nation’s alleged messiah, or to be involved in any manner in the events leading to His death, is to invite a demand of repentance from the followers of that messiah.

It is at least plausible - if not probable - that this context of early Christian preaching to fellow Jews provided the earliest social situations in which Jewish culpability for Jesus’ execution was emphasized and increasingly became a point of bitterness between Jews devoted to Jesus and other Jewish groups. In other words, Jewish followers of Jesus were treated by their fellow Jews as apostates and heretics who deviated from Jewish orthodoxy; in return, they answered that no, it wasn’t us who deviated from the right path, but you, because you have rejected your Messiah.

In fact, the two most Jewish gospels, that of Matthew and John, are at the same time the most ‘anti-Jewish’. While Matthew casts Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, he repeatedly slams “the scribes and the Pharisees” - his gospel is, after all, the one which has the infamous line “His blood on us and on our children.” John, while he records Jesus saying, “Salvation is from the Jews,” often (but not always, note) casts “the Jews” as antagonistic to Jesus.
 
While increasing blame was placed on the Jews (oftentimes using hostile rhetoric that would indeed sound rather offensive in this post-Holocaust world), the Romans, curiously, were increasingly whitewashed. While the earliest tradition included Roman and Jewish cooperation in the death of Jesus, in subsequent tradition history Christians would emphasize the role of each party to varying degrees: if 100% of the guilt must be assigned, some accounts tended to divide it evenly while others appeared to be much closer to total guilt/innocence. In the latter scenario it was nearly always in the direction of Jewish guilt/Roman innocence. In its most extreme form, the Romans are excused of all responsibility, so that it is only the Jews who actually perform the crucifixion. The 3rd century Gospel of Peter is one particular example of this. There it is not Pilate, but “Herod the king” who condemns Jesus to death and hands Him over, not to Roman soldiers, but to “the people” to be killed in what is effectively an officially-sanctioned lynching.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Duccio_di_Buoninsegna_-Christ_Before_Herod-WGA06804.jpg/279px-Duccio_di_Buoninsegna-Christ_Before_Herod-_WGA06804.jpg

But of the Judaeans none washed the hands, neither Herod nor any one of his judges. And since they would not wash Pilate rose up, and then Herod the king orders that the Lord be taken away, speaking to them, “What I ordered you to do to him, do.” Now there was Joseph the friend of Pilate and the Lord there, and knowing they were about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and requested the body of the Lord for burial, and Pilate, having sent to Herod, requested his body. And Herod said, “Brother Pilate, even if nobody had requested him, we would have buried him since also Sabbath is dawning, because it is written in the Law: ‘The sun must not set on one who has been murdered.’” And he handed him over to the people before the first of Unleavened Bread, their feast.

Now having taken the Lord they were pushing him, running, and saying, “Let us drag the Son of God along, having authority over him.” And they clothed him with purple and set him upon a seat of judgment, saying, “Judge righteously, King of Israel!” And one of them, having brought a thorny wreath-crown, set it upon the head of the Lord, and others, standing, were spitting in his eyes, and the rest struck his cheeks. Others were jabbing him with a reed-staff, and some scourged him, saying, “With such honour let us honour the son of God.” And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the midst between them, but he was silent as if having no pain. And they, when they set the cross upright, inscribed that ‘THIS IS THE KING OF ISRAEL.’ And having placed his clothes before him, they divided them up and cast a lot upon them.

Pilate’s role as the one who condemns Jesus to death generally diminishes in later Christian sources. The idea apparently is that the more the state persecuted Christians, the more generous becomes the description of Pilate as a witness to Jesus’ innocence. This trend has a precedent (again somewhat ironically) in Jewish apologetics: Philo appealed to Caligula and reminded him of the many privileges that previous emperors had granted to Jews, in response to measures the emperor was about to enforce that were offensive to Jewish sensibilities.

It is not just that Christians needed an ally in the form of a Roman official, but it was also significant for them to not have an enemy in the form of a Roman official, especially considering the status of Christians as illegal “atheists” after they were more or less distinguished from Jews (they could no longer invoke Judaism’s long-standing tolerated status and so were left to their own devices to negotiate their own alternatives to participating in the Imperial cult).
 
The positive portrayal of Pilate begins to wane by the 4th century, coincidentally with the arrival of Constantine and the recognition of Christianity as a legal religion. The Edict of Milan made it so that Christians no longer needed an ally in the form of a Roman official. Constantine and his successors were living, breathing emperors whose stature overshadowed that of a long-dead governor. It is at this point that we begin to hear of legends about his supposed fall from grace and suicide and how evil spirits infesting his corpse wreaked havoc that they had to move it from place to place and so on, in contrast to the Christian-in-the-making ‘Saint Pilate’ of earlier legends. Basically the positive portrayal of Pilate remained strong in the East (he is even considered a saint along with his wife in the Ethiopian Church), while in the West, the negative portrait of Pilate began to dominate.

But whereas there was some differing opinions on just how the Romans were involved in Jesus’ death, Christian anti-Judaism did not wane - on the contrary it took some turns for the worse. In a post-Constantinian world, where Jews have become a minority and Christians have dominated Europe, the original Jewish context of the dispute became more and more obscured as time went on to the point that anti-Jewish sentiments had oftentimes segued into full-blown anti-Semitism.

This has gotten to the point where when some people would hear about how the crowd shouts “His blood is on us and on our children” in Matthew’s gospel or the repeated negative references to “the Jews” in John, they would use it as an excuse to marginalize, mistreat or even exterminate Jews. “It’s all right here in Scripture, they murdered our Lord, those accursed God-killers are just getting what’s coming to 'em.” (Incidentally, the Passion narratives from Matthew and John are the ones read on Palm Sunday and Good Friday before we in the Roman Rite came to use the three-year cycle of readings!) Unfortunately, that line of thinking is apparently only a small step away from spreading nasty rumors about Jews murdering and eating babies or using human blood on matzo or thinking that they’re sneaky, dirty money-grubbers or something along those lines, as history would show us. 🤷

Admittedly, this is a very touchy issue for both camps (especially more so for Jews, who were often on the receiving end), but we can’t cover up the fact that such things happened - in fact, if we want to solve the problem, we shouldn’t deny that the problem existed, and to a degree still exists today.
 
Mel Gibson has nothing to do with the Gospels. His personal opinions are one thing, the film another. Again, I see much worse depiction of the Romans in that movie than of the Jews, so I really don’t know what’s the complaint about… 🤷
Mel Gibson has nothing to do with the Gospels but he had everything to do with how that film was made.

Re-read what I wrote: “It doesn’t help matters when the source (in the case of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson) goes on multiple anti-Semetic rants. That makes it easy for critics to read into the film messages that may or may not be there.

Mel Gibson produced and directed and financed the film. If he is out there making horrible anti-Semetic comments than people start to look at the movie and how the Jews are portrayed and start to see connections there maybe were unintended.
 
I don’t watch very many Jesus films.

But if you are talking about Jewish versus Roman guilt in the crucifixion and early Christian times, let’s look at what facts we can before making judgments on the motives of those interpreting those times centuries later.

There is ample evidence that not only Pilate was forced into crucifying Jesus, but that later the Romans tried to protect the Christians when they saw injustice.

According to Luke, even, Herod Antipas could have easily saved Jesus if he wanted to. In fact, Pilate wanted Antipas to take him off his hands.

Looking at Josephus and other near-contemporaneous Roman sources, as well as the Gospels, this can reasonably be concluded:

-as already stated, Pilate gave Jesus an “out”, first by sending him to Pilate, then using Barabbas in a gambit to save Jesus.

-Vitellius, according one interpretation, removed Caiaphas from the High Priest’s position in response to the crucifixion.

-the next year, Vitellius removed Jonathan from that position for harassing the Christians- having Stephen stoned by Saul and co.

-Marcellus, Pilate’s replacement, we know little about, be he did not create waves at least. He kept the High Priesthood in line concerning the Christians, it can be conjectured.

-When Claudius returned Judea to Jewish control, Agrippa I came down hard on the Christians, killing James, and arresting Peter.

-The Roman Captain Lysias protected Paul from the Sanhedrin, and sent him to Caesarea under armed escort.

-Felix protected Paul in his own palace in Ceasarea for 2 years.

-Festus further protected Paul by sending him off to Rome.

These pro-Roman facts and others can be deduced from Josephus despite Josephus being somewhat of an apologist for the Herod family and a former Jewish priest himself.
 
Since we’re talking about the portrayal of “the Jews” in Jesus films, let’s first focus on its immediate ancestor - passion plays.

Many medieval passion plays often showcased extreme caricatures of Jews (which are often now anti-Semitic on top of being anti-Jewish). In fact, such stereotypes, and their perpetuation of accusations of deicide, actually encouraged mob violence directed upon Jews. In 1338, for example, the city council of Freiburg in Germany actually forbade the inclusion of anti-Jewish scenes from the local Passion play because of their potential to incite havoc, and in 1539 passion plays were banned in Rome because of the violent assaults inflicted against Roman Jews in previous years. These passion plays portrayed the Jews as being a bloodthirsty people bent on killing Jesus (who were eventually cursed by God for their heinous act*), and showed Judaism as an outmoded, legalistic, harsh religion.
  • Building on the early Christian idea that the havoc wreaked by the first Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-70 (and later, the Bar-Kochba revolt of 132-135) is a punishment for the Jewish rejection of Jesus and a sign of God’s vindicating His Messiah, some later Christians had conflated two separate events - the death of Jesus and the two revolts - so as to make it appear that the latter occurred as a direct consequence of the former. (Historically of course, Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were expelled for quite different reasons.)
In a Greek work known as The Paradosis of Pilate, for example, Caesar is very enraged upon learning that Pilate has put Jesus to death and has him arrested. When Pilate divulges that he had Jesus crucified " on account of the wickedness and rebellion of the lawless and ungodly Jews," Caesar sends a letter to “Licianus, the governor of the chief places of the East” ordering him to “take action against [the Jews], and scatter them, and make them slaves among all the nations; and having driven them out of the whole of Judaea, make them the smallest of nations, so that it may not any longer be seen at all, because they are full of wickedness.” Pilate meanwhile is put to death by beheading, but not before he prays to Jesus and receives a reassurance that “all the generations and families of the nations shall count you blessed, because under you have been fulfilled all those things said about me by the prophets.”

The one that had the most impact in the West, however, is a 9th-century apocryphal work known as the Vindicta Salvatoris (aka The Avenging of the Savior). The work begins with two sick kings – Tiberius (who is historically the emperor at the time of Jesus’ death) and Titus/Tirus/Tyrus, “a court official of Tiberius in the kingdom of Aquitania, for a city of Libia which is called Burdigala” (based obviously on the military commander and later emperor who besieged and captured Jerusalem in AD 70).

Titus, who hears from a messenger about Jesus, becomes deeply moved by what he had heard and offended that the Jewish people had treated their Savior so cruelly. As a result he vows to avenge Jesus, threatening violent reprisals against them. As soon as he had uttered this, the cancer which afflicts his face is miraculously cured! 😉 Newly converted and baptized, Titus and his colleague Vespasian (again, based on the eponymous general who is the real-life Titus’ father and predecessor) then launch a violent assault on the Jews and lay siege to Jerusalem for seven to eight years. All the while King Herod (!) - or in some versions Archelaus (!) - kills himself, the eleven thousand soldiers guarding Jerusalem (!) commit mass suicide, food rations run out that people had to eat dirt. Eventually the survivors, after surrendering the city, were then captured and either put to death in various ways or sold into slavery for a cheap price. (Thirty people were sold for one denarius - because Jesus was sold for thirty pieces of silver!) As for Tiberius, well, he is cured by an image of Jesus (either painted or miraculously formed, depending on the version) owned by Veronica (yes, that Veronica), the woman formerly with the issue of blood.

This somewhat garbled retelling of the fall of Jerusalem (and Veronica and Tiberius/Vespasian) has become popular enough that later medieval works also adopted the story. In fact, “the destruction of Jerusalem” (by which they mean not so much the historical event Josephus writes about, but the Christian legend - with all its virulent anti-Jewish undertones - as recounted by the Vindicta Salvatoris and deritative works) was a pretty common topic for mystery plays during the Middle Ages.
 
One particular European passion play that survived to the present day is the one held in the town of Oberammergau in Bavaria. The tradition began in the 1630s when the inhabitants of Oberammergau vowed that if God spared them from the bubonic plague ravaging the region at that time, they would produce a passion play thereafter for all time. The death rate among adults rose from one in October 1632 to twenty in March 1633, eventually subsiding to one in July 1633. The villagers believed they were spared after they kept their part of the vow when the play was first performed in 1634. Word spread through the region about the play and became too expensive to perform every year, so the town decided that every 10 years would be sufficient. Since then the town had performed the passion play almost without interruption.

The thing about the Oberammergau Passion play was in its original form, it was like passion plays of earlier times: filled with anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic elements and stereotypes. (Some infamous elements commonly noted are the fact that the Jewish leaders wore outlandish costumes, that Judas’ costume was yellow, that there was a very unpleasant stock antagonist known only as the “Rabbi” who wants Jesus dead seemingly for no reason other than the fun of it, and the general tone: ‘good Christians’ vs. ‘bad Jews’.) In fact, it became rather infamous after Adolf Hitler saw it in 1934 (the special jubilee season of the play) and praised it as a “precious gift” in the fight against the Jews and declaring that “never has the menace of Jewry so convincingly portrayed.” There was even an attempt to rewrite the script to bring it more in line with Nazi ideology (an idea which, fortunately, was scrapped).

After WWII and the horrors of the Holocaust became clear, however, many prominent Jews, joined by Christians, began to demand significant, even radical changes to the Oberammergau play. The U.S. occupation authorities allowed the play to resume in 1950 (after being cancelled in 1940 due to the war), believing it would help restore stability to defeated Germany. However, post-WWII critics were more vocal in their calls for reform. In this they were aided by the Church’s declarations in Nostra Aetate:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Prodded also by Pope John Paul II’s declaration in 1985 that “[w]e should aim, in this field, that Catholic teaching at its different levels … presents Jews and Judaism, not only in an honest and objective manner, free from prejudices and without any offenses, but also with full awareness of the heritage common [to Jews and Christians],” the Oberammergau play’s script was finally revised, removing all the offensive elements and adding new material which emphasized Jesus’ and the disciples’ Jewishness. But not everyone is satisfied with the results.

P.S. Here’s an English version of the script as it was in 1890.
 
One of the earliest Jesus films, From the Manger to the Cross (1912), omitted scenes which could be construed as having an anti-Jewish element: hence there is no scene showing Jesus before the high priest, and the crowd that shows up before the praetorium is small. Pilate does wash his hands, but the controversial line in Matthew 27:25, which shows up in quite a number of early pre-WWII Jesus films, is absent (or at least not supplied by intertitles): in fact, the only ‘dialogue’ the crowd has is “Crucify him, crucify him” (John 19:6); most of the time the intertitles show only Pilate’s words while the crowd gesticulates wildly at the air.

But then again, the movie is also quite ‘unconventional’ in many ways - showing Jesus and His disciples seated on a round table at the Last Supper, Jesus carrying a T-shaped cross (both due to the film’s conscious use of the artworks of James Tissot as an inspiration for the costumes and the design), and (very controversially) ending the film with the crucifixion.

Incidentally, the size of the crowd is where the film differs from Tissot. Tissot conventionally shows a sizeable group of people at Jesus’ trial, while the one in the film couldn’t even seem to fill a classroom. The limited size of the crowd might be due to technical constraints, but in light of the omission of the trial of Jesus before the high priest (whereas Judas’ remorse and suicide and the mockery before Herod is included) and the other stuff we mentioned above one wonders whether this could have been a deliberate choice.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3551/dq7o.jpg
One of the smallest Good Friday crowds in Jesus film history. 😛
 
Other movies at the period, however, are less sensitive to the issue. D.W. Griffith’s response to the criticisms levelled against him in response to his Ku Klux Klan-glorifying The Birth of a Nation, Intolerance (1916), shows Jesus as being a victim of ‘intolerance’ by the Pharisees, who are out-and-out negative characters. (Incidentally, the original version was said to be more anti-Jewish, showing the crucifixion as being perpetrated by the Jews; this in spite of the fact that Griffith had a rabbi and an Episcopal priest as advisers. After B’nai B’rith complained, Griffith burned the original film and reshot the passion scene and altered bits of it to make it less offensive.)

In one place, the Pharisees in Griffith are kind of comical caricatures. The ‘Judean story’ section of the film begins by introducing us to “certain hypocrites among the Pharisees” - or at least two of them, walking down a road stroking their beards (what is it with villains and beard-stroking?) while people bow in respect. The intertitle adds an explanatory footnote explaining what ‘Pharisee’ means: “A Learned Jewish party, the name possibly brought into disrepute later by hypocrites among them.” The background is apparently the long list of woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, and the later use of the term ‘pharisee’ in a negative way. Note that while the intertitle takes pains to assert that not all Pharisees are hypocrites, this distinction is increasingly forgotten as the film goes on.

“When these Pharisees pray they demand that all action cease,” says an intertitle, as we see one of the two Pharisees doing so in public (“Oh Lord, I thank thee that I am better than other men;” cf. Luke 18:9-14) while some old guy eats and a woodworker…well, works with wood. As soon as the Pharisee starts davening and gesticulating more and more, everyone on the street literally stops what they are doing and freezes mid-action, including the old man (who was just about to take another bite of whatever he was eating), the woodworker, and a woman lifting a heavy sack. (I did notice a couple of folks in the back who continued to move. Those darned sinners…:D) To the woman’s (and everyone’s) relief, the Pharisees finally says “Amen” and everyone goes on continuing what they are doing.

Griffith also excoriates the Pharisees further by identifying them with the supporters of the temperance movement (those were the days immediately before the Prohibition, after all). The next scene in the Judean story is that of the wedding at Cana. As we are introduced to this film’s Jesus or “the Nazarene” (Howard Gaye) - who is a bit too divine to act human and so always moves and gestures slowly and dramatically, as most film Jesuses of that time were - the film produces two Pharisees (different from the ones we saw earlier) coming from the opposite side of the street. As Jesus enters the house where the wedding is held the two men avoid looking at Him, one even shielding his eyes, as the intertitle appears: “Scorned and rejected of men.”

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7899/867q.jpg

At the wedding itself the two Pharisees peer inside through a window. Just so we know how fun-hating those darned Pharisees were 🤷, they say (via intertitle): “There is too much revelry and pleasure-seeking among the people.” This is where Griffith delivers a blow against the temperance movement: “Wine was deemed a fit offering to God; the drinking of it a part of the Jewish religion.” In effect, Griffith has linked the fun-hating Pharisees of the 1st century with the rigid moral puritanism present in early 20th century American society. This could be seen in the way he connects Jesus with the protagonist of the ‘Modern Story’ section of the film, simply known as “The Boy:” the crucifixion is intercut with scenes of the Boy being sentenced to hang on the gallows. Two characters separated by two millenia being the victims of intolerance of their day.

The emphasis on wine continues on the next scene of the section, where the Pharisee (“equally intolerant hypocrites of another age;” the Pharisees are now directly compared with the reform movement known as the ‘Uplifters’ in the Modern Story) complains to a companion: “Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” (Matthew 11:19). (Interestingly, this film is a rare example of an early movie where Jesus actually smiles - He seems to really have a great time at the banquet.) In contrast to the jovial atmosphere of the banquet, the gathering of the Pharisees is somewhat ominous and rigid. The following scene is that of the woman taken in adultery, which is the final time the Pharisees directly appear in the finished film.

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/9060/0lmx.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img10/5517/xk0o.jpg
 
The next scene in the Judean Story occurs in the context of the Modern Story. Just as the Boy is tried and (wrongly) condemned for murder, so is the Nazarene condemned to death. Unlike Jesus, however, the Boy gets a last-minute rescue when the real culprit confesses. Compared to the handful of spectators in From the Manger to the Cross, we get the ubiquituous ‘cast of thousands’ jeering at Jesus as He carries the cross.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9436/cuvx.jpg

All in all, Griffith narrows the story of Jesus to the conflict between Him and the Pharisees, confines that conflict to an issue of pleasure versus intolerance masquerading as ‘temperance’, and thus reduces Jesus to a man of wine (note however that He doesn’t drink any alcohol on-screen), pleasure and tolerance. In the process, the Pharisees are portrayed two-dimensionally as the rigid, fun-hating, teetotaling,hypocritical enemies of Jesus.

As I mentioned earlier, Griffith originally intended for the Judean Story to have thirty cuts (the final version has seven), most of them showing Jews crucifying Jesus themselves. In a sense this would bring this section of the film to a head: the intolerant Jewish authorities now take action against the target of their contempt. However, due to protests by Jewish groups like B’nai B’rith, these scenes were removed from the film and the sequence reshot. As a result there are no chief priests, no Judas, no Pharisees in the final version of the crucifixion sequence.

Despite the token efforts (the footnote that not all Pharisees were hypocrites; the aside about the function of wine in Judaism), Griffith’s contempt for this Jewish group is barely hidden. The comment about wine for example does not convey a sincere appreciation of Judaism but rather promotes Griffith’s anti-temperance agenda. The problematic scenes in the Passion sequence were indeed removed, but the earlier scenes were allowed to stand (with a somewhat weak disclaimer). The omission of Jewish antagonists from the Passion and the inclusion of a number of explanatory and disclamatory points are overshadowed by the overall depiction of Jesus as the victim of the intolerant Pharisees, hypocrites far removed from the common people.
 
One of the earliest Jesus films, From the Manger to the Cross (1912), omitted scenes which could be construed as having an anti-Jewish element: hence there is no scene showing Jesus before the high priest, and the crowd that shows up before the praetorium is small. Pilate does wash his hands, but the controversial line in Matthew 27:25, which shows up in quite a number of early pre-WWII Jesus films, is absent (or at least not supplied by intertitles): in fact, the only ‘dialogue’ the crowd has is “Crucify him, crucify him” (John 19:6); most of the time the intertitles show only Pilate’s words while the crowd gesticulates wildly at the air.

But then again, the movie is also quite ‘unconventional’ in many ways - showing Jesus and His disciples seated on a round table at the Last Supper, Jesus carrying a T-shaped cross (both due to the film’s conscious use of the artworks of James Tissot as an inspiration for the costumes and the design), and (very controversially) ending the film with the crucifixion.

Incidentally, the size of the crowd is where the film differs from Tissot. Tissot conventionally shows a sizeable group of people at Jesus’ trial, while the one in the film couldn’t even seem to fill a classroom. The limited size of the crowd might be due to technical constraints, but in light of the omission of the trial of Jesus before the high priest (whereas Judas’ remorse and suicide and the mockery before Herod is included) and the other stuff we mentioned above one wonders whether this could have been a deliberate choice.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3551/dq7o.jpg
One of the smallest Good Friday crowds in Jesus film history. 😛
If you’d like the Jewish perspective on Christian anti-Judaism in the Christian scriptures, its background and development, may I suggest the following video of a lecture on this subject:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e8WO7FdoU
 
Cecil B. DeMille’s penultimate silent film, The King of Kings (1927) was controversial for its depiction of Caiaphas (Rudolph Schildkraut, who incidentally was Jewish). DeMille had edited the film after prerelease complaints of anti-Semitism. In the released film, he had added a disclaimer at the beginning about how Israel was under “complete subjection” by the Romans - “even their own High Priest being appointed by the Roman procurator”, notes again at the very first scene how the Jews were “groaning under the iron heel of Rome,” and most importantly, rewrites the controversial Matthew 27:25 passage so that Caiaphas alone takes the blame (“If thou, imperial Pilate, wouldst wash thy hands of this man’s death, let it be upon me and me alone!”) and adds a scene showing him filled with remorse upon witnessing the Temple veil being struck by lightning and tearing in half. “Lord God Jehovah, visit not Thy wrath on Thy people Israel - I alone am guilty!”

Nevertheless, even with these changes the final product still exudes an anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish air by post-Holocaust standards. Despite the claim that the Jews were under Roman control, it does not in any way explain why the Jewish authorities are portrayed as venal and cruel. The attempt to shift blame away from the high priest to the Romans who appointed him does not tell us why Caiaphas seems to have many loyal followers, who are as nasty as he is.

Yes, the crowd is ostensibly absolved of any guilt, and in the released film DeMille avoids making it appear as if they all wanted Jesus to be crucified; when the chief priest’s lackeys were bribing the people to shout for Jesus’ death one person even refuses: “Ye cannot bribe me, a Jew, to cry for the blood of an innocent brother!” Despite these token efforts, however, any and all negative traits is transferred to Caiaphas, an ugly, smug, money-hungry power monger who looks like a living embodiment of established anti-Semitic stereotypes.

At his first scene Caiaphas is even introduced as someone “who cared more for Revenue than for Religion - and saw in Jesus a menace to his rich profits from the Temple.” The Temple market is “to the High Priest, Caiaphas, a corrupt and profitable market-place.” This is how the intertitles went in the original 155-minute roadshow version (the one which premiered at the opening of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in 1927 and one most commonly available today). The first intertitle was changed in the 1928 112-minute general release version after the film had courted controversy amongst Jewish groups. Caiaphas is now “an appointee of the Roman government, and arch-enemy of Jesus. Upon him rests the responsibility for the world’s supreme tragedy.” In addition, the word “corrupt” was removed in the description of the Temple market.

DeMille’s Caiaphas provides a jarring contrast with the noble and more physically-handsome Pilate: as soon as Pilate (unwillingly) condemns Jesus to death, he goes off to mourn in his throne room, while Caiaphas - joined by his lackeys - folds his arms in self-satisfaction and smiles smugly. Even Caiaphas’ remorse scene is questionable: while he pleads to God to hold him alone accountable and not pour out His wrath upon all the Jews, the earthquake (which forms chasms huge enough to swallow people and cause erosions like in The Ten Commandments - he really does like that, DeMille, doesn’t he? :D) and the thunder and lightning do not stop, which may imply that God is deaf to his prayers. It is not until a female disciple of Jesus implores that the light be given back to them that the storm subsides.

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6618/b8ws.jpg
Pilate the handsome vs. Caiaphas the ugly. Hmm…

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4255/1wpi.jpg
That’s…a lot of people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top