| Author |
Message |
    
irl
Citizen
Username: Irl
Post Number: 68
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 7:57 pm: |     |
Just playing devil's advocate, if Biblical history has it that the Jews (not "all" Jewish people everywhere and in every time, but rather the ones that were there at that time) tried and condemned Jesus, why is it anti semitic to make a movie about it?
When movies are made depicting the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, no one accuses the makers of being anti German.
What's the differnce? |
finnegan
Citizen
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 63
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Although I am generaly reluctant to respond to trolls (or devil's advocates) this topic is important and will draw even more attention when Gibson's film opens next week.
For a solid discussion of the issues of "Jewish culpability" for the death of Jesus, as well as modern biblical scholarship, see the cover story in Newsweek last week:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/
Still, some of irl's wording must be questioned. The first question is: what do you mean by "biblical history?" The Jewish and Christian Scriptures are collections of a variety of texts, written by many different authors over a period of more then a thousand years. Some of the books, but not most, are meant to be actual historical accounts (Chronicles, Kings, and in the Chhristian scriptures, The Acts of the Apostles.) The four gospels of the Christian "new testament" do not claim to be objective, detached records of history. Instead they are meant to tell the story, preach the "Good News," (literal meaning of the term: Gospel)and spread the message of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They were written at the end of the first century when those who had known Jesus personally were dying out as a group. They recorded what their various communities thought was most important to hand down to their children. (The word "tradition" literally means that which is handed over or passed down.) Assuming there is something akin to a history textbook called "biblical history" is naive and anacronistic.
My second question would have to be about your claim that "biblical history has it that the Jews... tried and condemned Jesus...." Since the Jews were a people living under Roman military domination, they certainly didn't have the right to impose the death penalty. None of the gospels suggest this. I don't know if you're trying to intentionally incite folks here, or if you're simply unfamiliar with the texts.
If you're genuinely interested, I recommend starting with the Newsweek article. |
gemini
Citizen
Username: Gemini
Post Number: 279
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Yes, Newsweek will give an accurate accounting of the death of Jesus. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6399
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
The Sadducees and Pharisees were both responsible parties. Jesus pissed off the Pharisees, who were hung up on written Mosaic law and Tradition and didn't like Jesus' forgiveness and love spin on it without their OK; and the Sadducees, who held the power base and the wealth and didn't like Jesus's growing following. It was convenient for both groups to get rid of him. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 509
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
Crucifixion was a Roman punishment.
And be careful with the phrase "what's the difference?"
|
irl
Citizen
Username: Irl
Post Number: 70
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 9:53 pm: | |
Thank you, Finnegan, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, I do not intend to intentionally incite people. I simple put forth a question I was asking myself. I did read the Newsweek article (thank you. it WAS very good), however, I guess Newsweek and I start at a different premis. I DO believe the Bible is the inerrant(sp?) word of God, and DON'T belief that the gospels were written as a way to simply persuasively promote a fledgling religion.
I also believe that Christ HAD to die for ALL of the sins of ALL Christians and it really doesn't matter who (Caiaphas) or what people group or groups (I'm sure there were some Romans in that square) were "responsible". They were simply used of God for His purposes.
To persecute any one people group as a whole would be wrong. I guess I just wonder why, if Gibson is using the depiction in the Bible, he has to be labelled an anti semite. As Newsweek did point out, the Catholic Church teaches that it could be dangerous to pick and choose different pieces from the 4 Gospels to put together a Passion play, however, shouldn't that only get him accused of taking unwise artistic license?
|
irl
Citizen
Username: Irl
Post Number: 71
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Themp -
I really don't mean "what's the difference" in a flippant, demeaning way. If there's a better phrase, I'm all for it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
irl, this subject has been debated so much over the last 1970 years that the word "exhaustive" barely scratches the surface. Newsweek was recommended because it's handy, but there are shelves full of material you could read and get a much better picture of the subject than you ever would here.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2872
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 10:14 pm: | |
My alma mater has done a good job in providing some resources for more background on this:
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/education/PASSION_resources.h tm |
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 204
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:48 pm: | |
irl:
The question is not whether Gibson is anti-semitic or not. I am inclined to believe him when he says he is not. But he is willfully naive, at best, if he spent $25 million of his own money and used all of his tremendous Hollywood resources to make this movie, yet did not take the time to carefully research the considerable writings on the Passion.
Unfortunately, the Passion HAS been used to justify horrible anti-semitic attacks--including helping foster the climate that allowed the Holocaust to occur. Even in America, as a Jew, I was once beat up for being a "Christ killer". And that was in Hartford, CT in 1968--not some backwoods village in Eastern Europe in the 1800's.
Echoes of the blood libel from the Passion plays continue--look at Amiri Biraka and others who say Jews were informed in advance of the attack on 9/11. Look at Palestinian textbooks on the blood lust of Jews.
I am sure the movie will be powerful--I find the story of the Passion to be one of the most moving in all of religion worldwide. This movie will become a major tool for communicating the Passion to generations to come.
In this historical climate, for Gibson to ignore the impact of his movie is reckless, cavalier, and ultimately dangerous. He had a chance to transmit the beauty of his vision and faith in a way that carried the true message of Christ's death and resurrection, but he chose to present it in a way that allows for easy misinterpretation by those with enmity for Jews. He so easily could have made a movie informed by modern scholarship. Choosing to ignore this is what has caused the furor, and he deserves it. |
finnegan
Citizen
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 64
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 1:04 am: | |
irl, I think that Gibson opens himself up to charges much greater than bad artistic license by engaging in what can only be called willful ignorance of the historical use of the Passion accounts, which have been interpreted in the history of Christianity to justify persecution of Jews. Gibson, identified repeatedly by the press as a "traditionalist Catholic," opts to ignore even the teachings of the Roman Catholic church regarding responsible use of the Gospel accounts of the passion. It is Gibson's pretending that these texts have not been used to oppress and kill that is repugnant. It is his refusal to acknowledge the reality of historical Christianity's persecution of the Jews that is problematic. It is his claim that his work has been guided by the Holy Spirit that deeply offends.
That said, I feel compelled to point out that it is the teaching of all the major Christian denominations that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity (not just Christians). It is also quite possible to understand and acknowledge the historical contexts and specific situations that gave rise to particular texts while at the same time professing belief that those texts are (or contain in some way) the Word of God. Inerrancy is slightly more difficult for modern biblical scholarship to support,(even just among the 4 Gospels there are often various accounts of the same event - which is inerrant?) but many, especially evangelical Christians, do try to make sense of this ancient teaching.
And Dave, some biblical scholars actually believe that Jesus and his friends were themselves Sadduces (mostly because Jesus taught in the Temple - which only a Sadducee would be able to do, and 'Iscariot'- as in Judas Iscariot - is etymologically related to the root word of Sadducee,) however, that is a minority position. The majority of bible scholars would, however, agree that to hear the gospel accounts of the passion the way they were intended, it would make sense to replace the phrase "Pharisees and Sadducees" with "the religious leaders." "Religious leaders" are as open to charges of hypocrisy and corruption today as they were in biblical times - as a brief perusal of any newspaper will confirm. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page