By: Gerald A.. Honigman
"They may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom!"
Thus, allegedly, spoke William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, via Mel Gibson's vocal cords. No doubt, the blockbuster movie was spectacular and led me to admire the Scots even more than I did already. Questions regarding the historicity of the movie, nonetheless, caused quite a commotion. Ronald Hamowy of the Department of History at the University of Alberta summed it up this way in his June 28, 1995 comments:
"Frankly, this movie has about as much merit historically...as one of the countless dubbed Italian films
about Hercules battling the tyrants..."
Regardless, William Wallace was a true 13th century Scottish hero, and Mr. Gibson's passion for the freedom of this people and sympathy for their cause shined through. He is to be commended for this. Now, as we heard the words of Braveheart, we'll soon turn to another quote, this one by a leader of another oppressed people fighting, over a thousand years earlier, the conqueror of much of the known world.
The Roman-sponsored historian, Josephus, hated his fellow Judaean countrymen who took up arms against the Roman Empire. He saw them as fighting a war that could not be won, leading their nation to ruin. He aligned himself with the future Emperor instead. So he wrote what he wrote not out of admiration. Keep this in mind.
Indeed, the situation Josephus feared was the same as if little Latvia had taken on the Soviet Union in the latter's heyday of power. Yet the Judaeans/Jews did just that...and kept the struggle going for about a hundred years. Judaea Capta coins can now be found in museums all over the world and were issued by Rome to commemorate its victory. The Arch of Titus stands tall in Rome to this very day as well and, among other things, displays Romans carrying away spoils of the Temple and Judaean captives.
So, the historicity of the Jews' struggle is beyond reasonable doubt and is highlighted by the Romans themselves.
We will look shortly at the speech of Eleazar ben Yair, leader of the last major band of Judaean warriors to hold out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C..E., to his band of fighters and their families atop the fortress of Masada just prior to the final Roman assault. Let's turn first, however, to another brief but telling quote from the contemporary Roman historian, Tacitus, who, like Josephus, also lived during the time of the Jews' struggle and had lots to say about it as well:
"It inflamed Vespasian's resentment that the Jews were the only nation that had not yet submitted (Vol.II, The Works Of Tacitus)."
After Masada fell in 73 C.E., when the Emperor Hadrian decided to turn the Temple Mount into a pagan shrine, it was the grandchildrens' turn to take on their mighty pagan conquerors. And, again, Roman historians, such as Dio Cassius, recorded the second revolt (132-135 C.E.) as well. Among other things, the entire Twelfth Roman Legion was wiped out before the leader of this second major quest for freedom by the Jews, Shimon Bar Kochba, fell at Betar. Detailed letters from him to his troops have been discovered as were the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the latter is the "War Scroll" which speaks of the conflict between..."the Sons of Light vs. the Sons of Darkness," etc.
Let's listen now to Josephus, Book VII, Wars Of The Jews:
"Now as he (Eleazar) judged this to be the best thing they could do in their present circumstances, he gathered the most courageous...and encouraged them ....by a speech: 'Since we, long ago...resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than G_d himself...the time is come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice..."
Mr. Gibson, especially, should now listen very carefully...Eleazar:
" '.... We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them (see Tacitus' quote above) ;and I cannot but esteem it as a favour that G_d hath granted us that it is still in our power to die bravely, in a state of freedom...' " Masada's defenders committed mass suicide—families and all—rather than fall into Roman hands.
While a few scholars debate the details, practically everything else that has been excavated, etc. testifies to Josephus' trustworthiness...so there is no reason to doubt him here. Masada is an amazing place to visit. The Roman camps, ramp, etc. are all still there. And remember, Josephus was no fan of those atop the fortress. Let's just say, if Braveheart's quote about freedom can be taken as history, there's certainly no problem with Eleazar's. Indeed, William Wallace has nothing over Eleazar ben Yair...Braveheart II, the movie Mel should have made.
To add icing on the cake, the Israeli tank corps takes its pledge atop the fortress yearly, "Masada shall not fall again!" Wow, what a script! ABC actually produced a made-for-television movie about Masada some twenty years ago with the latter as a sort of postscript.. It appears ABC has buried that movie, for whatever reason, ever since....a shame. There's lots of good history and action in it....plus a good cast.
So here's my confusion and the real reason for this article. Mel Gibson has used his millions to recently produce a film, "The Passion of Christ," which deals with a topic which has caused millennia of suffering for Jews. Among other sore points, Gibson has included the verse from Matthew 27:25, "His blood be upon us and our children," whereby the Jews allegedly take blame for the death of Jesus. It has been used to justify Jewish suffering in the minds of millions of Gentiles over the millennia.
The Pope, Reverend Billy Graham, and thousands of other Christian religious figures have applauded the movie and can see no problems. "It is as it was" stated Pope John Paul II...
From a Christian theological perspective, those words are acceptable. But theology isn't necessarily history, and there is now sound historical scholarship—with no theological agenda to promote either way—which puts much of what "it is as it was" in serious doubt. And much of it has been conducted by Christian scholars.
While I have admittedly not seen "The Passion of Christ" yet, I have closely analyzed its topic through a scholar's eyes while doing doctoral studies and later on as well. Let's just say that what Mel claims to know as "historical truth" is, at the very least, debatable. Jews, obviously, have theological differences with their Christian friends. Hopefully these can be discussed without fear of inquisitions, the Auto de Fe, public disputations, forced conversions, and worse which accompanied those differences in the past.
Why is it that events in the Hebrew Bible a.k.a. "Old Testament" can be discussed and debated, but those in the New Testament are apparently off limits to a fair study? I think I know the answer, unfortunately. The disgrace surrounding the deliberate suppression—for decades, until very recently—of information related to the Dead Sea Scrolls by a monopoly of Catholic priests and scholars is another manifestation of this.
Among other things, the version of Jesus' life one reads about today in the New Testament had to get its stamp of approval at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. by Rome itself...Jesus' very executioners and the conquerors of the Jews who paid a big toll themselves for that conquest. Now who do you think Rome was going to allow blame to be assigned to once it became Christian itself and had say over which doctrines were to become officially accepted as Christian doctrine?
There were other accounts of what Jesus did, said, etc. They were declared to be "heresies" and treated accordingly. Among other problems, the issue of the very divinity of Jesus had surfaced. Jews could never deify any man, Messiah or otherwise. Roman historians wrote of this strange people who worship a god no man can see and who refuse to even deify their kings nor the Caesars. But this is a whole other debate.
The issue of the Jews' alleged role as "G_d-killer," which Gibson felt just had to be resurrected at this time yet again, has caused so much pain, suffering, and death to Jews over the centuries, however, that it's hard to believe that this man, so sensitive to the Scots, felt that there was nothing better to spend his wealth on. I regret to say that my own family has certainly contributed to that latter endeavor. We purchased many of his movies on DVD.....after having already paid the price at the cinema.
Regardless of what its attributes may be—and, again, I've not yet seen the movie—I've read enough about the film by others whom I trust and who have seen it to know that the results will be harmful. I don't fear "truth." Jesus had his enemies and supporters like any other leader in an occupied and oppressed nation. Rome sought out, crucified, and killed all would-be such leaders among the Jews. The modern experience of the Vichy French collaborators of the Nazis during World War II comes to mind, and there are many other good examples as well.
But Gibson's "truth" is, at best, debatable for those who are seriously in quest of it. Regardless of what he claims his intent really is for "The Passion," it's pretty much a given what at least one of the film's main impacts will be.
While there are sophisticated ways of interpreting the Gospel of John, for example, when the average person reads him allegedly quoting Jesus calling the Jews (not Pharisees, etc.) "sons of the Devil, doing your father's deeds," what impact can this sort of teaching have?
Is it a surprise that one of the first pictures in Europe of a Jew is entitled, "Aaron, Son of the Devil.?" Even the Renaissance sculptor, Michelangelo, put Devil's horns on Moses' head.. So, is it really any stretch to next learn of untold thousands of Jews being massacred for "poisoning Christian wells" and causing the Bubonic Plague...and countless other tragedies encountered as a result of such "religious" enlightenment?
After the famous "Passion Plays" throughout Europe, it was common for Christians to get drunk and then go after the "G-d Killers." Deadly massacres and pogroms were especially common around Easter time. Is that what Mr. Gibson misses?
I know he claims not to share the Holocaust-denying, etc. anti-Semitism of his father and others, but forgive me if I don't believe it. One could argue that Jews have too long been the Suffering Servant of G_d (see Mr. Gibson, there's more than one way to interpret Biblical passages) to remain silent over this filmed passion play.
Finally, think of the zeal Mel Gibson showed for the struggle of an oppressed people in Braveheart. Now contrast this with his willing ignorance (and one can only guess what else) regarding this subject vis-a-vis the Jews ...a struggle in which Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth, regardless of how one views him, was caught up in and was crucified for—like thousands of Judaeans both before and after him—in his people's fight for freedom against their Roman tormentors.
