Beetlejuice Vs. Braveheart: Back In The Antisemite Saddle Again…
by Gerald A. Honigman
In light of the renewed upsurge in antisemitism across much of the globe, news I received recently struck a very sensitive nerve…
I had been alerted to an incident involving Beetlejuice’s Winona Ryder and Mel Gibson by the great folks at StopAntisemitism.Org. A few friends made sure I didn’t miss it… https://www.stopantisemitism.org/antisemite-of-the-week-2/antisemite-of-the-week-mel-gibson-hollywoods-biggest-repeat-bigot
I like Mel Gibson as an actor and director. I have enjoyed much of his work, and one movie, in particular, was truly amazing.
Suffice it to say, however, that, among other identifying features regarding that other wonderful movie, Braveheart’s star, Mel Gibson, he has a habit of calling Jews such things as “oven dodgers” and such… https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/winona-ryder-says-mel-gibson-once-asked-if-she-was-n1231903.
Ms. Ryder’s comments were later confirmed by others who also witnessed Gibson’s spewed venom over the years… https://www.stopantisemitism.org/antisemitic-incidents-38/non-jewish-writer-backs-winona-ryders-claim-against-antisemite-mel-gibson
Leopards don’t change spots, and Mel doesn’t change his either. In a way, that’s good. Personally, I hate phonies, and prefer enemies front and center–where I can see them.
This late June 2020 alert brought back memories of events from almost two decades ago. Since many people won’t recall these, let me explain…
Back in early 2004, if I recall the exact time correctly, Diane Sawyer interviewed Mel Gibson about his then new film, The Passion of the Christ, on ABC. It was a fairly balanced interview, so my initial fears of a whitewash were put to rest.
But most folks still don’t understand what all the fuss had been about. So, please permit me to be as candid as possible in trying to clarify the potential problems revolving around this sensitive and painful subject.
Are you ready?
“Why do you not hear the words I tell you? It is because you are your father the Devil, and you do your father’s deeds.” While slightly paraphrased, thus, allegedly, spoke Jesus to The Jews–not just Pharisees, Priests, etc….specifically, Jews who refused to acknowledge the god-in-the flesh Logos holy Intermediary, as John’s Gospel (and Paul before him) saw Yehoshua/Jesus of Nazareth.
After the fall of Jerusalem and the death or dispersion of Jesus’ followers in the wake of Judea’s first major revolt for freedom against Rome in 66-73 C.E., Paul’s ideas and interpretations of a Jesus whom he never knew triumphed. Open http://q4j-middle-east.com to see a coin of conquest Rome issued in honor of its victory. The Arch of Titus was also built to commemorate this and stands tall in Rome to this very day.
There were many reasons for this. Certainly, one had to do with a need for the nascent Christian community to quickly dissociate itself from any connection to the Jews and their revolt against the Empire. It was dangerous enough that Jesus had been executed as a Judean rebel against Rome. So that had to be explained away quickly.
The first Gospel, Mark–written in Rome just around the time of its conquest of Judea–took care of this problem with its doctrine of the “Pacific Christ.” Yet, there is much evidence that Yehoshua/Jesus did not simply ignore his people’s worldly plight this way.
All was not simply to be relegated to a Heavenly Jerusalem. There has been lots written about this subject by historians of all religious persuasions–by people who truly care about what was actually going on in Judea when Jesus walked Planet Earth–not just those with theological “proofs” they wish to promote.
For an imperfect analogy, picture a revolt by Lithuania against the Soviet Union in its heyday of power, or what it was like to be a partisan resisting the Nazis. Or how the latter would treat any leader preaching support for the coming of a kingdom other than their own during turbulent times.
While the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a. “Old Testament,” can often be discussed, debated, analyzed, debunked, and so forth, any attempts to do likewise with the New Testament often run into major roadblocks. While scholars may sometimes engage in such discussions, rarely do these trickle down to the average church-going Christian.
Again, in candor–meant to promote true healing via honestly dealing with this painful history–what comes next is not meant as an assault on Christianity, or to show disrespect to my Christian friends. It is simply an answer to Christianity’s libels against Jews–like those of Mel Gibson.
For well over a thousand years, when Jews tried to answer such libels, they were frequently murdered for their attempts.
Visit churches around the world today and you will still find statues of a symbolic Jewish princess with a blindfold covering her eyes…allegedly deaf and blind to “the truth” a la the Gospel of John.as seen above.
Those same churches have paintings of Jews stabbing the Host, trying to kill Jesus yet “again.”
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales tells the story of Little Hugh of Lincoln, whom Jews allegedly caught, killed, and bled to prepare their Passover matzoh, or whatever. There were many blood libels–followed by massacres of Jews–just like this, and they spread to the realm of Islam as well…just some of many other religiously-inspired examples of Jew-hatred.
Regardless of how you spin the Gospel of John’s words (and many have tried to do just that), the masses knew what he meant. One of the first pictures of a Jew in Europe was entitled, “Aaron, Son of the Devil.” Hundreds of years later, Michelangelo placed Devil’s horns on his famous sculpture of Moses.
It is estimated that such “holy” teaching led to the death of millions of Jews prior to the Holocaust.
Name the problem, it was the Jews’ fault, be it the plague (“they poisoned the wells”), the economy, disease, drought, defeat in war, etc.
Massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, demonization, Inquisitions, dehumanization, ghettoization, and the like–culminating in the Holocaust–were the legacy of such religious enlightenment vis-à-vis the perpetually wandering “deicide people.” The road to Auschwitz was indeed paved by such religious teachings.
And then, regarding Mel’s most controversial scene in his movie, there’s the Gospel of Matthew’s version of Yehoshua/Jesus’s life wherein, among other things, Matthew has the Jews gladly taking the blame themselves for Jesus’ death: “May his blood be upon us and our children.” Mel made sure his movie Jews had hooked noses and such.
And with the use of Matthew’s above quote, thus were justified the frequent calamities which befell Jews over the centuries in the eyes of many a follower of Jesus…the very same folks who were often the perpetrators of those atrocities as well.
Gibson had stated that he originally wanted the blood guilt quote in the film, but had second thoughts. Earlier he alleged that if he included it, the Jews would be out to get him.
Poor Mel…victim of another Jewish conspiracy.
His movie graphically put on film the problems of the age-old “passion plays.” In the wake of the latter, those same quotes mentioned above were placed into the mouths of allegedly blood-thirsty Jews seeking to kill Jesus. Massacres of the local “god killers” frequently soon followed. And I won’t capitalize G_d when used in such a way. To Jews, that very thought is blasphemous.
Moving on…Wouldn’t it be nice if Christians could just get their own theology straight?
I thought they believed that it was preordained in Heaven that Yehoshua/Jesus would die to redeem a sinful world incapable of doing so by itself? So how are any humans to be blamed?
That’s Paul’s teaching, after all–a Jew raised outside of Judea in a Hellenistic world and likely schooled in a philosophy that saw the material world as being hopelessly unredeemable by itself.
Given Christianity’s problems with getting its own theology straight, it is even more understandable that it refuses to look at these issues through an objective historian’s eyes.
But theology and history are frequently not synonymous.
Not only do the Gospels differ among themselves about some very important details, but all Christian doctrines were subjected to the approval of Rome–the very executioners of Jesus, as well as thousands of other Jews whom they perceived as “trouble makers”– after the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 C.E.
Versions of Jesus’ life (Gospels) and interpretations of what that life meant which differed from that approved by Rome were subsequently banned and destroyed. The book and movie, The Da Vinci Code, would deal with some of this stuff years later.
Judea rose in revolt for its freedom and independence at least two major times against the Empire. Roman historians such as Tacitus, Pliny, and Dio Cassius had plenty to say about this, as did the Roman-sponsored Judean historian, Josephus. See what these contemporary writers wrote about this subject… https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6785
Such details and issues never seem to bother the Gibson ilk who simply enjoy portraying Jews as evil villains.
Would purveyors of Christian love like Mel have advised French or Greek partisans in World War II to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and settle for just for “Heavenly Jerusalem,” forsaking their own worldly freedom and well-being? Would Gibson & Co. have advised those who dreamed of breaking the yoke of Soviet bondage to do likewise?
Now let’s shift gears a bit and turn to another troublesome mix.
In a related development, a little before Gibson’s Passion… was released, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Irineos had been approved as Patriarch of Jerusalem. Letters from him to the PLO’s Arafat contained, among other gems, the following:
“You are aware of the… disgust… all the Holy Sepulcher fathers feel for the descendants of the crucifiers of our Lord Jesus… crucifiers of your people… Jewish conquerors of the Holy Land of Palestine.”
So, here’s where Christianity’s ingrained antisemitism and anti-Zionism meet–not that there’s really much difference anyway. Israel has simply become the Jew of the Nations, frequently treated as none others are and subjected to double standards and hypocrisy even by the “enlightened.”
After Auschwitz, it’s not politically correct, at least in many Western circles, to be an antisemite… Ergo, anti-Zionism.
This is not to say that one must approve of every Israeli policy, but much of the critique and vilification of Israel is blatantly unfair. Ironically, that’s how the assimilated Theodore Herzl’s vision of Israel reborn emerged in the first place.
Der Judenstat —The Jewish State–was written as a result of Herzl’s covering the infamous Dreyfus Affair in late 19th century France. It was the rabid antisemitism of the allegedly “enlightened” segments of society, as well as the rabble, that convinced people like Theodore Herzl, Leo Pinsker (Autoemancipation…), and others that there was simply no hope other than Zion reborn.
Sadly, at a time witnessing an intensification of antisemitism around the world, Mel Gibson, the offspring of Holocaust-denying Jew-haters, deliberately chose with his earlier movie (seen by countless millions of people), and still chooses, to continue to pour yet more fuel onto the embers of hate.