Gibson’s Movie, Discussion

2004.02.22

Pâ•qidꞋ  Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u

When two mutually respectful and well-intentioned people disagree, it is often a case of incomplete knowledge rather than a clash between theology and pragmatism ("When theology and pragmatism clash," 2004.02.19). Shmuley Boteach and Michael Medved are each looking at opposite sides of the same coin, and both are right. Yet, because each has different parts of the same picture, both are also wrong. I don't think it's accurate to characterize Michael Medved as lacking theology nor Shmuley Boteach as lacking pragmatism.

Both men are right in valuing Bible-believing Christians' support of Israel and love for Jews. Mr. Boteach is right versus Mr. Medved in his concern that Christian audiences of this movie may see all Jews other than the followers of Mr. Gibson's Christ as culpable for the crucifixion, while Mr. Medved is right versus Mr. Boteach that denying historical documentation is senseless and self-defeating; the biggest single reason why much of the world views Jews as "blinded to truth". Mr. Gibson's movie aside, however, historical documentation absolves "the Jews."

Mr. Medved is tantalizingly close, dangling before readers the only key to the solution: "this logic only holds if one accepts an unbreakable association between today's Jews and the corrupt Roman collaborator Caiphas, high priest in the Temple at the time of [Christ]."

Part of the problem is Christian reliance upon, followed by Jewish acquiescence to, the historicity "for Christians" (as if contradictory histories are both true) of post-135 C.E. Hellenist-Roman – miso-Judaic – redacted Greek accounts called "the Gospels" in contradiction to their own earliest Church historian, Eusebius. The Greek redactions, indeed, track back to Mark. But Eusebius documented that all these were derived "as best gentiles alien to Hebrew and Aramaic could understand" from Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhꞋu – which wasn't miso-Judaic. A truly historical movie will rely on Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhꞋu, not Hellenist-Roman redacted miso-Judaic accounts from over a century after the fact. Part of the solution is a combination of reintroducing Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhꞋu to Christians and inoculating Jews with the historical perspective of Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhꞋu in contrast to the Gospels.

The other part of the solution is to begin the annual retelling of the KhaꞋnukh•âh story just a bit earlier, with the High Priests KhonꞋyo (Yᵊkhon•yâhꞋ) Bën-Shim•onꞋ (2) Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ (Hellenized to "Onias") and his rabidly Hellenist brother, Yᵊho•shuꞋa (Hellenized to "Jason" – why not as "Jesus" or "Joshua"?), and include what Qum•rânꞋ scroll (4Q) MMT (Mi•qᵊtz•atꞋ Ma•as•ëh′ ha-Tor•âh′) can teach us. Not only might Shmuley Boteach and Michael Medved find agreement in more complete historical facts, the ramifications will, inevitably, one day change, and merge, the face of the Jewish and Christian worlds as they both converge into documented historical facts.

There isn't any line of responsibility between the Jewish people (who are heirs of the Pharisees) and the Hellenist Sadducean aristocratic heirs of Yᵊho•shuꞋa (Hellenized to "Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 2 Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ and his genealogically illegitimate Hellenist successors who purchased their "priesthoods" (including the High Priesthood – including Caiaphus) from the Romans. Serving the Romans instead of י‑‑ה, these genealogically unqualified "priests" were rebuked even by the (legitimate) Sadducee priests (mainly in Qum•rânꞋ) whom they, by the power of the Romans, had dispossessed from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ. The Pharisees – who included RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and, excepting the aristocrats, all of the Jewish people – openly condemned the illegitimate "priests" from the time of Yᵊho•shuꞋa (Hellenized to "Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 2 Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ onward.

RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (Bën-Dâ•widꞋ – whom many, including myself and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, hold to be the Mâ•shiꞋakh) was condemned by these illegitimate, Hellenist, Roman-sycophant "priests" and crucified by their Roman masters – both of whom were abhorred by "the Jews." To obtain their conviction, these Hellenist, Roman-puppet false "priests" convened several blatantly illegitimate sessions of their "beit din" (not the Great Συνεδριον), which contradicted the Oral Law (to which, (4Q) MMT (Mi•qᵊtz•atꞋ Ma•as•ëh′ ha-Tor•âh′) documents, all first century sects adhered). No legitimate beit din could have done that.

It was the aristocratic Roman-sycophant Sadducees and their illegitimate false "priests" who replied to Pilate: "His blood will be upon us and upon our seed" (The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM) 27.25). Now tell me, where are the Sadducees and their seed?

That is what an historically accurate depiction would show, and the standard by which Mel Gibson's movie must be measured. One must see the movie to make that evaluation.

© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher