February 16, 2004
Bearing False Witness: Jon Meacham's Newsweek Article on "The Passion"
Jon Meacham, an editor with Newsweek magazine, recently wrote a lengthy review of "The Passion", which was published in the most recent edition of Newsweek. Naturally I read the article as soon as it came out. As one of our readers just reprinted the entire article to this blog on a related post comment (singing the article's praises), I felt it would be a particularly appropriate topic. Thus, I will give a review of the review, as it were.
To summarize, Mr. Meacham's article is fit for the National Enquirer. I suppose that is a bit unfair, as Mr. Meacham's tale is much more intricately spun than what one would find in the "poop sheets" as my grandmother calls them, but the effect is nonetheless the same. While Newsweek is an unabashedly liberal publication, a sort of counterspin to U.S. News & World Report you might say, the Meacham article just does not represent the class of writing, liberal or otherwise, that Newsweek should be proud to publish.
Meacham suggests that Gibson takes liberties with Scripture. On close examination, however, his allegations are subtle, largely giving the reader the impression that Gibson has taken liberties with Scripture, but without giving any concrete examples. Where he does offer specific examples, it is Meacham that turns out to be the deceiver. For instance, Meacham states:
In an ensuing scene, Mary Magdalene calls for help from Roman soldiers as Jesus is taken indoors to be interrogated by the priests. "They've arrested him," she cries. A Temple policeman intervenes, tells the Romans "she's crazy" and assures them that Jesus "broke the Temple laws, that's all." . . . It is true that the Temple leaders had no use for Jesus, but these lines of dialogue--which, taken together, suggest Jewish control over the situation--are not found in the Gospels.
Seems pretty clear that Gibson is way out of touch, right?. But hold on to your underpants... what's this?!! The Bible (you know, that book that the story comes from) states that "a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests ... stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him." Matthew 26:47-50. In verses 57-67, Jesus is taken before the high priest, interrogated fiercely, spit on, and beaten. So, Meacham was right that the specific lines of dialogue never took place. But his insinuation that there was no "Jewish control over the situation" is, Biblically speaking, false. A deception. A lie!
Another example of Meacham's deception immediately follows:
The climax comes when Caiaphas asks Jesus: "Are you the Messiah?" and Jesus says, "I am..." and alludes to himself as "the Son of Man." There is a gasp; the high priest rends his garments and declares Jesus a blasphemer. . . . [I]t was not "blasphemy" to think of yourself as the "Messiah," which more than a few Jewish figures had claimed to be without meeting Jesus' fate, except possibly at the hands of the Romans. The definition of blasphemy was a source of fierce Jewish argument, but it turned on taking God's name in vain—and nothing in the Gospel trial scenes supports the idea that Jesus crossed that line.
Returning once again to the real Gospel (one must wonder if Meacham ever read it), Matthew 26:63-65 states:
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy!"
There are many more examples of such deception in Meacham's excuse for journalism, but these will have to suffice. What makes Meacham's lies so offensive is that they are cleverly hidden; so well woven into the fabric of the story, it is hard to even pin Meacham down to an affirmative statement about what the Bible does or does not say. Instead, Meacham craftily lures his readers into thinking the Bible contradicts Gibson, without actually saying as much. And even when one consciously picks out what Meacham implies, it takes a keen knowledge of Scripture (thank you Mom and Dad) to know whether Meacham is being honest or fibbing his way to the bank.
What Meacham would pass off as an article illuminating the discrepancies between Gibson's film and the Gospel is actually Meacham's own personal vendetta against the Gospel itself. One can only guess that his technique is motivated by the fact that in a country where most people accept the Bible as truth, a review that blatantly undercut the Gospel would not go over well. But pitting Gibson's movie against the Gospel while only secretly undermining the Gospel itself--that would sell like candy!
Even a rational person who does not know anything about the Bible, however, should be able to perceive the problem with Meacham's attempt to discredit "The Passion". Such notable religious leaders as James Dobson and Billy Graham have given their whole-hearted endorsement of the film. And this from Protestant scholars, mind you, both well-known for "sticking to the story". Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, stated of the film, "It is as it was", thus supporting, if nothing else, the faithfulness of Gibson's account to Scripture. So, the most preeminent authorities from the Protestant and Catholic perspectives think the film is accurate, but the venerable Jon Meacham would have us disagree. So, pray tell, what are Meacham's Bible credentials that his opinion should be valued above those whose life's work it is to review, interpret, and apply the Scripture? Anyone?
At certain points in the article, Meacham reveals his deep-seated suspicion of and resentment towards the Gospel. Nowhere is this better shown than where he states of the film's violence, "The effect of the violence is at first shocking, then numbing, and finally reaches a point where many viewers may spend as much time clinically wondering how any man could have survived such beatings as they do sympathizing with his plight." Let's review: our Savior suffers a most gruesome death, tops it off by descending into Hell to pay for our sins, and Meacham's clinical academic critique of Gibson's portrayal is: "Boring and highly improbable." Notice that here, at least, Meacham does not attempt to discredit Gibson's portrayal of the gruesome death as un-Scriptural--because it most definitely is precisely what the Scripture depicts.
Ultimately, the only antidote for Meacham's poor, unfair, and downright deceptive review is the Gospel itself (and I encourage anyone reading the review to be well-endowed in their knowledge of the Gospel). The only antidote for Meacham's cold-hearted attitude is, ironically, the very thing he mocks: the Passion of the Christ.
In Christ,
Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Thank you so much for your insightful review of Jon Meacham’s Newsweek Article. Also your article on the Diane Sawyer interview. Yes, she acted as if anyone who would believe, that the bible should be taken literally, is not a very intelligent person.
I am a Protestant, and I deeply respect the Catholic Church, and the Holy Father for not compromising its values, traditions and love for the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for leading the fight against abortion. I am a United Methodist and abhor our denominational stance on abortion. I belong to a renewal group (the only reason I stay) within our denomination fighting to turn our denomination around to the truth.
The Truth is something that Diane Sawyer didn’t seem to care about during her interview with Mr. Gibson. There was a comment during the interview by one of the “infamous” Jesus Seminar, Scholar/ Theologian want to be ( I’m not sure of this gentleman’s name, but I do know that he does NOT believe in the Virgin Birth nor in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ,( He has stated in the past- that dogs drug the bones of Jesus away.) I do not believe that this man understands the meaning of the word Heretic. Why is this man allowed to comment on the “passion” of our Lord? If one cannot believe that Mary, the Blessed Mother gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, then the true sacrifice of what Jesus did cannot possibly be understood. The comment was something to the affect, that if Martians were watching the movie, they could not possibly understand what would be taking place. I felt that Ms. Sawyer was acting like a Martian, having absolutely no understanding of the Gospels, or of Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, I also agree that there should have been a Catholic Scholar on the commentary board. A movie made about the “Passion” of our Lord Jesus Christ, made by a Roman Catholic- If there was a movie made about the life of Mohammad, made by a Muslim, I think there would have been several Muslims available for comment, don’t you?
God Bless,
Melody Marks
Jackson, Ohio
Thanks for the post, Melody. I encourage you to peruse our site for other articles. Our entire focus is on helping people come "around to the truth", particularly on the issues you mentioned. Let us know if you have any questions.
In Christ,
Dave
Well, the specific lines of dialog were not -recorded-.
Posted by: Steve at February 20, 2004 12:04 AMThank you for the review, Dave!
Another example that absolutely disgruntled me! After listening to this, I was so upset that I just decided not to waste my time reading the article. To hear it for yourself, follow this link and click on "Listen to the audio" under the banner labled "NEWSWEEKRADIO" (in the middle, alongside the text):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212782/
The only example that Mr. Meacham actually says here is this (trancript): «I think the essential place where Gibson really [steared?] farthest from the best historical reconstruction is in the portrait of Pontius Pilate and the role of the Romans relative to the Jewish highpriest and most of the jewish figures we see in the movie. (...) The idea that makes for great drama but bad history, that he would stand there and be screamed at by a mob being told what to do, just doesn't really pass the historical "smell-test".»
This raises a fascinating aspect! So, Pilate was so brutal, that "The Passion Of The Christ" (and the Gospel, as it seems) is obviously mistaken as it portrays him that nicely and malliable even if by a mob. I think that Matthew 27:19 is of such depth there! I also would suggest that Pilate and his wife felt so guilty of Christ's death that maybe after the Resurrection they looked for the Apostles to repent and ask their forgiveness, searching for the kind of Peace that only Christ can give. Let me explain...
Let's understand what's spiritually going on with Pilate (I'm think out loud here). He's cowardly seeking to wash his hands of the whole issue -- but would God let him do it just like that? I find this so significant! Yes, Pilate is fully responsible for Christ's death (this would also shy away those sensationalist accusations of anti-semitism that are in fact "Christ-fobia") but what is so interesting is that this sense of guilt for doing such injustice seems to be the main cause of his cowardness, and taking into consideration that he was such a brutal leader, and that he lived in such an amoral Roman society, not concerning about "what is the truth", he must have been in real agonizing distress about this afterwards, such as his wife (and imagine both of them speaking about this!). He did try to "wash his hands" but that is clearly a sign of fear and cowardness, motivated by something higher than political judgement. This man was different to the point that even Pilate's natural brutality was put into question within himself; he experienced guilt like he never had before. And this is what's so amazing to those that treat Christ as just another prophet that preached the "Kingdom of God" or that He was the "King of the Jews". Lots of those kind of "prophets" did so and were easily dismissed or killed; why was it so different with Jesus? About two thousand years have passed and, with the Church He established still on Her feet and praising Him, we can in fact -- not only historically, but also dogmatically! -- know why He is different. And how He could endure all that suffering, and in fact be the Lord of Heaven and Earth like those who come to believe in Him proclaim (but for some it will always sound too good to be true).
Also, I'm intrigued if there's any particular reason why the movie doesn't (seem to) depict Matthew 16:13-20 ("Who do people say the Son of Man is?" / "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.") - as a flashback or something? That's strange, concerning the relevance given to Peter in the New Testament. Maybe no specific link to the Church was intended, other than the Eucharist? Also, I know that Peter is seen in the movie asking for Mary's forgiveness. I still don't know how's the flashback of Peter's denials, but it seems that this amazing part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ wasn't portrayed in the movie -- the gates of Hell will not overcome Christ's Church, and He shows that in the Resurrection! I'm worried about this, but I hope that the Apostle John makes up for the significance of the apostolic nature of the Church, in more ways than one...
Going back to the cover story...
He concludes with a kind of reasoning that any slightly educated Christian should be able to debunk (thanks to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity popular logic about it): «...whether you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy...». It really seems to me as if all that Jon Meacham knows of the subject is taken from biased liberal books, so hopelessly rejecting Scripture's authority that he set it aside, considering not very relevant to take it seriously as proof for history as it happened. Especially when he says that some things *aren't* there! I guess that's what you can expect from someone that accomodates to what people are inclined to hear... Reminds me of how surveys of what's appealing to the general public are guiding Anglicanism's response to the declining participation in their celebrations...
> «So, pray tell, what are Meacham's Bible credentials that his opinion should be valued above those whose life's work it is to review, interpret, and apply the Scripture? Anyone?»
I was astonished to see that the man is only a managing editor, what makes him sound even more arrogantly incompetent, speaking of things he hasn't been able to confirm as truth while portraying them as established facts, with an attitude of scorning Gibson's work (sounds like that to me).
> «But pitting Gibson's movie against the Gospel while only secretly undermining the Gospel itself--that would sell like candy!»
Exactly! Kind of Meacham's own tribulation and "hand-washing", don't you think? :o)
> «In conclusion, I also agree that there should have been a Catholic Scholar on the commentary board. A movie made about the “Passion” of our Lord Jesus Christ, made by a Roman Catholic»
Sure, but why would they feel like doing it? "It's ok" to bash Catholics anyway, sadly enough, they don't seem to do much defending their own Church! They'd probably throw in a liberal scholar; hey, why not a "relaxed" managing editor (with whom "anyone" could identify) and it's a wrap? That's pretty much the logic in today's journalism in respect to Catholics, unfortunately.
Maybe some of us should personally write to Meacham about this nonsense, or at least e-mail him (not long) comments? I think he cannot be left to his own deceitful thinking on this, someone has got to tell him the truth! :o) Because, he really sounds confused and confusing many:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4207773/
«Jon Meacham: I am a believing Episcopalian, which is to say I am a Protestant Christian (...) I believe we all—Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever—must respect the mystery of God and should be allowed to worship or not worship in any way we see fit.»
By the way, it is selling: I've seen what seems to be his ideas reprinted (there's no reason to think why they won't be happily accepted into many people's mindsets to minimize the movie's impact in their own lives):
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/165320p-144771c.html
P.S.: Seeing how the role of Pilate is so important, the one who truly had the power and just lied to himself by ignoring his responsibility in the injustice he committed? Seeing how this confused and coward ("relativistic") culture -- or should I say sinfulness -- is questioned?
Yours in Christ,
Joao
Really enjoyed your appearance on the Factor. Bill is a good guy but I don't think he understands. Christians should not be able to rejoice in their hearts with what their minds or reason rejects. Those who don't understand this...may be great people and even religious but unless they can embrace the truth...it may just be religousity...meaningful but not as meaningful as the real thing. Plus the non-chrisitan world needs to understand the root of our conviction is based on real time space history and this is our basis for convictions about morals and values...its not just because we want to think a certain way...it is logical to us...but its also obedience to an authority that really lived and lives and has supreme rank over us. When non believers want to say something is wrong ...they only have their opinion or polls (the tyranny of the fickle ever changing majority)...no foundation beyond themselves. Non christians may disagree...thats Ok...we can disagree but we also must have the opportunity to practice our scholarship and religion too. Truth is Truth as the late great Francis Schaefer often said. Keep up the good work. Thanks for trying to help the believers understand their foundation and for reaching out to non-believers. Others are listening, reading and watching. God Bless you and enjoy the holidays. Well done good and faithful.
Dave:
Well, Meacham has done it again. How about a nice response to his 'historical' take on the virgin birth and his theory that Luke and Matthew made it all up. My reason tells me that men may well be willing to die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But how many men are willing to die for a lie that they know is a lie? Apparently, nearly all of the apostles and Christ himself. All for the purpose of spreading a false religion. But why would we expect Meacham to believe in a virgin birth any more than he would believe in a physical resurrection?
