Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” is mired in controversy once again…. Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” is mired in controversy once again. This time it doesn’t relate to Pope John Paul II – who saw the movie, but did not comment on it, contrary to what was widely reported – but to the movie’s content, which many view as anti-Semitic. Gibson has stated that he wanted to show the Passion as it happened. Yet many people who saw the movie at select screenings find its violent portrayal of Jews disturbing. There are differences between documents of history and documents of faith. If Gibson is to present “The Passion” as a historical account, he should stick to the closest thing we have to a historical account of the crucifixion – the Gospels. Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, an inter-faith consultant with the Anti-Defamation League, who saw “The Passion” in a Miami screening, criticized its portrayal of Jews. In a Reuters report, he stated that the much of the film’s gore was not based on the Gospels, but on the writings of a 19th century nun, in the book “The Dolores Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” If Gibson went to the effort of reviving dead languages – the film is in Latin and Aramaic, an ancient vernacular language, as well as Hebrew – then he shouldn’t throw in an obvious anachronism. Moreover, he shouldn’t try to pass it off as the canon interpretation of the crucifixion. But most of the hubbub is aimed at the exclusion or inclusion of a scene based on the Gospel of Matthew 27:25, where a Jewish high priest declares a blood curse on the Jewish people, making them responsible for the death of Jesus. It was this sentence that fueled much of the anti-Semitic fervor that followed Passion plays in the Middle Ages. And it was that type of anti-Semitic fervor that the Catholic Church wanted to avoid when it dropped the whole blood curse issue at the Second Vatican Council in 1965. As the Pope stated in 1997, “Erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility toward this people.” The New York Times reported Feb. 4 that this scene would be cut from Gibson’s film, though Gibson has not commented on this. But the rest of the film should take into account both historical account and modern ideas and interpretations. Showing Jews as antagonists in the Passion – especially in a film that will be widely released and hugely marketed to churches – neglects history. Jesus was Jewish, as were many other players in his story. Adjusting the movie is not a matter of political correctness, but one of simple correctness, and Gibson should change his film accordingly. Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” is mired in controversy once again. This time it doesn’t relate to Pope John Paul II – who saw the movie, but did not comment on it, contrary to what was widely reported – but to the movie’s content, which many view as anti-Semitic.

Gibson has stated that he wanted to show the Passion as it happened. Yet many people who saw the movie at select screenings find its violent portrayal of Jews disturbing.

There are differences between documents of history and documents of faith. If Gibson is to present “The Passion” as a historical account, he should stick to the closest thing we have to a historical account of the crucifixion – the Gospels.

Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, an inter-faith consultant with the Anti-Defamation League, who saw “The Passion” in a Miami screening, criticized its portrayal of Jews. In a Reuters report, he stated that the much of the film’s gore was not based on the Gospels, but on the writings of a 19th century nun, in the book “The Dolores Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

If Gibson went to the effort of reviving dead languages – the film is in Latin and Aramaic, an ancient vernacular language, as well as Hebrew – then he shouldn’t throw in an obvious anachronism. Moreover, he shouldn’t try to pass it off as the canon interpretation of the crucifixion.

But most of the hubbub is aimed at the exclusion or inclusion of a scene based on the Gospel of Matthew 27:25, where a Jewish high priest declares a blood curse on the Jewish people, making them responsible for the death of Jesus.

It was this sentence that fueled much of the anti-Semitic fervor that followed Passion plays in the Middle Ages. And it was that type of anti-Semitic fervor that the Catholic Church wanted to avoid when it dropped the whole blood curse issue at the Second Vatican Council in 1965.

As the Pope stated in 1997, “Erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility toward this people.”

The New York Times reported Feb. 4 that this scene would be cut from Gibson’s film, though Gibson has not commented on this. But the rest of the film should take into account both historical account and modern ideas and interpretations.

Showing Jews as antagonists in the Passion – especially in a film that will be widely released and hugely marketed to churches – neglects history. Jesus was Jewish, as were many other players in his story. Adjusting the movie is not a matter of political correctness, but one of simple correctness, and Gibson should change his film accordingly.