The Anti-Semitic Conscousness And Consequences

Now that Mel Gibson has shown himself to be an Anti-Semitic drunk, he has taken the extra step to apologize for his recent actions, not the least of which is driving while inebriated. Although at last account there was no confirmation from authorities as to the veracity of published reports of his racist remarks, he did apologize for saying things while intoxicated that he says were wrong, further explaining that he has been fighting alcoholsim for some time.

He supposedly also said the Jews are responsible for every evil in the world. Then he asked the arressting officers and others present if they were Jews. Then he tempered his remarks by shouting "fuck you", and "I am going to fuck you."

Mel Gibson has been on the defensive lately, in fact ever since the release of his blockbuster hit "The Passion Of The Christ", which he financed with twenty five million dollars of his own money, and which currently ranks number ten in the world in box office receipts.

Still, whatever the truth or exaggeration as to his reported remarks, he has managed to come off here more as a maddened Dioysius than what you would consider a devout Christian . And, despite his apologies, you can be certain that he is destined to answer further charges of anti-Jewish racism.

The wonder is to me, not that Mel Gibson may turn out to be a virulent anti-Semitic person after all, but that, as a Bible believing conservative Catholic Christian, after all, how could he not be.

That has been the real elephant in the room the whole time, and is one that is seldom broached. When it is, it is by mainly Gibson detractors who insist that Christianity is not Anti-Semitic, that in fact at most Christianity has been used as an excuse for Anti-Semitism, though this is based on a perversion of the Gospels, that Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance and forgiveness.

Unfortunately, only one thing in the above statement is true, and that is the fact that Christianity has been used as an excuse for Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the rest of the argument falls apart when you carefully peruse the Gospels, which upon doing so you realize there is a reason Christianity provides this excuse.

And that reason is, sadly, that the New Testament of the Bible-most especialy the Gospels-are indeed virulently anti-Semitic.

Now some will most certainly point out what they consider the fallacy of this statement, by reminding me that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and John were Jews (Luke was evidently an early Greek convert and disciple of Paul), and that perhaps most importantly, Jesus was himself a Jew. How then can you arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels were anti-Semitic?

The issue of Jesus's parentage, or even if he ever truly existed, is up for debate, to begin with. As for the so-called apostles, there is a very definite answer to that statement, which, once it is realized, makes everything all too clear.

And that is, out of all of Jesus's original apostles (Paul, who was indeed a Jew, did not come along until after the crucifixion) eleven out of the twelve were not Jews. The one Jew, incidentally, was Judas Iscarriot.

Now, it is true the others were Jews by religion-but not by race. The people of Gallilee had previously been a pagan people who had been forcibly converted to Judeaism by the first of the Haesmonean Kings, Aristobulus I. This, by the way, was a mere one hundred years approximately before the given time frame of the crucifixion (around 27-28 AD).

The ancient Romans in time definitely came to undertand this very distinction that escapes us today, and in some cases we find references to the cult of Christianity as that of "the Gallileans".

What it all amounted to was a regional prejudice exhibited doubtless by both sides one against the other. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the cult of Christianity had been around for a good many years, even prior to the forced Jewish conversion, as one of the pagan cults adhered to by many of the formerly pagan Gallileans. In order to survive, it simply went underground for a time, then re-emerged with a suitably Jewish veneer. In this way, it might have been similar to the maner in which many transplanted African slaves to the Carribbean disguised their own partiular pagan gods as Catholic saints.

So if this much is true, why was this ancient cult transcribed and mythologized as a then fairly recent historical event? To answer that question, you have to understand Judaean history, of particular importance being the great rebellion of Judaea against Roman rule, which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the magnificent temple buildt not too many decades earlier by Herod The Great.

This event took place beginning about seventy AD, the final destruction being undertaken by Titus, the son of the Emperor Vespasian, who had suceeded Nero after a brief struggle in which in one year alone four different claimants, following Neros fall, claimed the Imperial throne.

It was the aftermath of this massive tragedy that resulted in the dispersal of the Jews from Jerusalem, and throughout various parts of the Empire. They were of course looked upon with suspicion and revulsion by the majority of the Empires citizens. And, to a point, they looked upon all of them as the same, whether or not they were Judaeans or Gallileans.

There is good reason to believe that there was a great deal of antagonism between the two groups. Most Gallileans of course considered themselves Jews, but they, like the Judaeans themselves, looked askance at the practices of the Gallilean Nazarite sect known as "The Way", and engaged in a good deal of what today would be considered racist propoganda.

They were in fact accussed of vile and abominable practices, such as sexual orgies, homosexuality, and even cannabalism. All of this in fact began prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple, before even the time of Nero. As far back as the reign of Tiberius, and later Claudius, who both conducted massive deportations of Jews from Rome on the grounds of their practices for "the god Christos".

Therefore, once the destruction of Jerusalem and The Temple had taken place, there was already a long history of rivalry, distrust, and even hatred between the two groups. After the disastrous rebellion, the Gallileans took it on themselves to put down in writing their own particular take on the reason for the disaster, and did so by placing the blame squarely on the Jews in a way they could begin to distance themselves from it.

"His blood be upon us and upon our children" the Jewish Hish Priest was suppossed to have said to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (by now conveniently long dead), who had symbolically washed his hands of any blame for the death of "this innocent man".

Even the vile and corrupt Herod Antipas had failed to find fault with him after questioning him, though Jesus had refused to answer any of his impertinent questions and challenges as to his mystical powers and reported miracles.

Even a lowly Roman centurion-a pagan-was able to recognize the obvious signs of divine displeasure as Christ lay dead on the cross, and the sun stood still and darkness engulfed the land.

"Surely", he said, "this was the Son Of God".

But the Jews as a group were unrepentent. The savior, the messiah, they had so long awaited, had come amongst them, and they had hated him, revilled him, and ultimately, demanded his murder, a demand which a supposedly reluctant Pilate felt obliged to grant.

But that is not all. The prophecies of the end times that is so often discussed, as pertaining to the Gospels, has nothing to do with some far future date, but seems to be revolved around the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred around 70 AD. More to the point, this is portrayed in the Gospels as being directly related to the Jewish rejection, condemnation, and murder of the Son of God, that same personnage who the Roman Pilate, and the Roman appointed tetrarch Herod, would have wished to avoid.

This was a typical Jewish device that was also adapted by the Gallilean sect. The art of Biblical prophecy seems to have revolved, in some cases, around looking back toward a similar time, which resulted in a specific set of circumstances, and predicting the same result to the present. At other instances, the so-caled prophecies were actually written down after the fact. More often not, many fulfilled prophecies were no more than claims. For example, Jesus entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey was an example of an action that was purposeldy performed in order to fit a required prophecy.

Therefore, it would not be a stretch of the imagination for an adept religous leader, made familiar with history to a point uncommon to most common people of the day, to recognize the impending catastrophe the Judaean leaders were bringing on themselves and their people. In other words, someone might have legitimately pointed this out. On the other hand, if the Galilleans only claimed to have made this prophecy prior to the event, but in reality did so after the fact, who was there to disprove the claim?

The whole bizarre story of the origins of Christianity are shrouded in mystery, and it takes incisive viewing to even begin to pierce through the vale of centuries of deception. But once you begin to do so, a pattern emerges. And that pattern to a great extent reveals a complex web of prejudice on both sides, while at the same time the prejudice exhibited by one side will be seen to be excused on the grounds of the provocations of the other.

Because of this, there are many instances in the New Testament of bigotry and intolerance displayed by the Jews toward other ethnic groups-for example the Samaritans. And while these prejudices may have existed, there can be no doubt they existed on both sides pretty much equally.

And, the fact that Jesus urged tolerance, forgiveness, and love might seem to mitigate somewhat the anti-Jewish hatred of the Gallileans. Unfortunately, it also serves a further purpose-that of inflaming old resentents that much greater a degree.

Unfortunately, as we have seen far too often, it has come nowhere close to extinquishing it. Evidence of Mel Gibsons reputed Anti-Semitism, if true, is a perfect example of how old hatred and prejudices are hard pressed to fade away-even after twenty centuries. Or maybe it would be best to say, especially after that long. The ingrained nature of such feelings may amount ot a kind of societally enhanced psychic, subconscous brainwashing. It will be with us for some time to come.