MEL GIBSON
INTRODUCES “PASSION” FOR WOMEN
(WHO ARE
ANTI-SEMITIC): THE PLOT
Joe Wallack
THE PLOT
Mark
10
11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him
money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.
Let’s consider Judas’ motivation for betraying Jesus and who is motivating
Judas. Judas’ initial motivation for betrayal is unclear here. There is an
implication that he did it for money. The name ‘Judas’ is also suspect as this
is the most Jewish sounding of all the disciples’ names. The “who” here are the
chief Priests.
Matthew 26:
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the
chief priests,
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him
unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
Judas’ motivation here is explicitly monetary. Thirty pieces of silver doesn’t
seem like very much and Judas makes no attempt to negotiate (more doubt that
“Judas” was Jewish). The who here are still the chief Priests.
Note that “Matthew” later uses “thirty pieces of silver” as a claim of prophecy
fulfillment:
Matthew 27: (KJV)
9 “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And
they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom
they of the children of Israel did value; 10 And gave them for the potter’s
field, as the Lord appointed me.”
But there is no such direct quote from Jeremiah and you couldn’t even piece the
above together by sifting through all of Jeremiah. This creates doubt as to the
historicity of the “thirty pieces of silver”.
Luke 22:
3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the
number of the twelve.
4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and
captains, how he might betray him unto them.
5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them
in the absence of the multitude.
Judas’ motivation here is explicitly Satan. Note that the sum of supposed money
becomes unimportant because it’s no longer the primary motivation and “Luke”
doesn’t use it as prophecy fulfillment. This also creates the following
possible contradiction here between “Luke” and “Matthew”:
Luke 22: (KJV)
5 “And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.”
Compare to Matthew 26: (KJV)
15 “and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?
And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.”
The KJV’s “covenanted” for Matthew is a mistranslation and should be “paid”.
Almost every other major, modern Christian translation says the equivalent of
“paid”. Even the NKJV says “paid”. So “Luke’s” Judas by implication,
(covenanted) didn’t receive money up front but “Matthew’s” Judas did. More
doubt.
As to the “who” according to “Luke”, now it’s “the chief Priests and captains”.
So the group of Jews is growing.
John
26
28 “What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus told him, but no one at the
meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the
money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast,
or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he
went out. And it was night.
Judas’ motivation here is explicitly Satan. Note that “John’s” Judas has no
need to ask the chief Priests for money as he is already Holding the disciples’
money. So “John” provides another reason to doubt that Judas was paid anything
here or even was motivated by money.
“John” doesn’t make explicit who Judas plotted with but implies that it was the
chief Priests and Pharisees:
John 18
3 “So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some
officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches,
lanterns and weapons.”
According to Emmerich Judas’ initial motivation was
money. He was persuaded to betray Jesus by the Pharisees and Saduccees as a group and Satan.
Evaluation of level of anti-Semitism on PLOT portion of movie:
1) DOUBT -
WHAT was Judas’ primary motivation?
“Mark” ― Possibly no reason or possibly for
money.
“Matthew” ― Money in general and specifically
thirty pieces of silver.
“Luke” ― Satan.
“John” ―- Satan.
Emmerich ― Money.
HOW much was Judas paid?
“Mark” ― Unspecified amount.
“Matthew” ― Thirty pieces of silver.
Problems:
1)
Doesn’t seem like very much.
2)
A related incorrect prophecy fulfillment is claimed.
“Luke” ― Unspecified amount.
Problem:
1) “Luke” implies a deal was made but there was no payment at this
time
while “Matthew” implies there was payment made at this time.
“John” ― Nothing.
Problem:
1) “John” indicates that Judas was in charge of the money so he
wouldn’t
need to bargain for money from the chief
Priests.
“Emmerich” ― Thirty pieces
of silver.
WHO did Judas plot with?
“Mark” ― chief Priests.
“Matthew” ― chief Priests.
“Luke” ― chief Priests and captains.
“John” ― (by implication) chief Priests and Pharisees.
“Emmerich” ― chief Priests and Pharisees.
Conclusion as to Doubt:
Significant doubt exists as to WHAT was Judas’ primary motivation (money
vs. Satan), WHAT was Judas’ compensation (unspecified sum, 30 pieces of
silver or nothing) and WHO Judas plotted with (Chief Priests only or
chief Priests and Captains or chief Priests and Pharisees). Presenting some
group of Jews as doing the Impossible (killing God) is increasingly
anti-Semitic to the extent doubt exists as to supposed historical facts.
2) CHOICES made by Gibson.
WHAT was Judas’ primary motivation?
In the
HOW much was Judas paid?
Gibson chose to use the most definite information given by any source, thirty
pieces of silver, even though there are good reasons to doubt the historicity.
This relates to doubt, discussed above.
WHO did Judas plot with?
Gibson chose to use the broadest group of Jews from his possible
sources, the priests and the Pharisees. The degree of anti-Semitism increases
as one chooses to show a larger group of Jews negatively.
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence, in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Copyright © 2004, Joseph Wallack. All rights
reserved.