Yeah, but it was in Latin. For all we knew the priest was droning on about his golf game. By that time on a sultry Spring Friday, in a poorly ventilated church full of incense and people who thought wearing deodorant, if they had heard of it at all, was for “fairies,” ones thoughts were focused on not throwing up.
I don’t really see much reason for anyone to get worked up over Gibson’s film, anymore than a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar. It is, after all, one of the most famous stories ever told. Whether it is true or not, and whether it’s an accurate account of the Gospels, is sort of a moot point. So what? My only disagreement would come if it claimed to be a textually accurate version, and it wasn’t. But Last Temptation wasn’t textually accurate, didn’t claim to be, and so what?
The hubbub about the film is clearly something that Gibson enjoys getting all worked up about, though, as he sees it as a confirmation of the persecution that Christians face throughout society. Of course, if criticism from a couple of people (which is almost inevtiable) that will almost certainly boost his box office take is persecution, then I want to be “persecuted” some more!
It is, however, a bit chilling to be accused of anti-Semitism, so people had better apologize if there’s nothing to this. There DOES seem to be something to the “homosexual dandy” bad guy rumor, though. Sigh, but again Gibson abusing on screen and trying to make us hate homosexuals is nothing new.
I think the only major hang up for this movie, if it does have mild “perfidious Jews conspired to murder the true phrophet” scene, comes when and if it is shown in non-Western countries. In the Middle-East, there are obvious problems. And in Asia, many people think that Hitler is a cute spokesperson/logo to sell portable heaters.
This was supposed related by a couple of Jews who snuck a peak secretly. Could be true, could not be. If so, then it’s a bit disturbing, though it’s not out of the ordinary for the way villans vs. good guys are portrayed. Again, the major problem with this probably isn’t in the West.
Personally, I’m offended by some of the movie posters, however:
So the Gospels seem to tell us. But then, why should we take their picture seriously? The Gospel wants to say that they are hypocrites, and SURPRISE! tells some stories wherein they are shown to be hypocrites!
What we do know about the Pharisees is that they were against toadying up to the Romans and secretly hoped for the return of the Temple State. They were the scholars and to some degree fundamentalists. They were critics of society, but they weren’t necessarily powerful, and many had more in common with maverick cyncics than the leaders of the community: they were themselves often persecuted. And they fell out of favor in a big way after the Temple was destroyed in a failed uprising against the Romans… right around the time we suspect the first Gospel was written, a Gospel that seems to be preoccupied by explaining why exactly the Temple had to fall. Draw your own conclusions.
Well, God says that he likes to punish otherwise innocent people who happen to be related to sinners right in the Bible. Nothing new for the OT God here either.
“Son of God” in Hebrew/Aramic idiom was not a claim to divinity. It had a range of meanings, but that was not one of them. It was a designation for those who were favored by God, who were “righteous,” or who were chosen for some purpose. It might be used for prophets or even the Messiah (who was not a divine figure by Jewish expectations) but it was not a claim to any literal divine paternity.
It could also be used as an application for people in general or for Israel in particular (sometimes called the Children of God")
In Jesus’ case, he’s basically being asked if he’s the Messiah, a son of David (also called a “Son of God”) and a presumptive King of the Jews.
The Gospels say that Jesus answered this question affirmatively but, again, it was not against Jewish law to say you were the Messiah, it was not a claim to divinity and it was not blasphemy.
I should have mentioned that “Son of God” had a fairly common association with kings and the Davidic line in particular.
[QUOTE=Apos]
What we do know about the Pharisees is that they were against toadying up to the Romans and secretly hoped for the return of the Temple State. They were the scholars and to some degree fundamentalists. They were critics of society, but they weren’t necessarily powerful, and many had more in common with maverick cyncics than the leaders of the community: they were themselves often persecuted. And they fell out of favor in a big way after the Temple was destroyed in a failed uprising against the Romans… right around the time we suspect the first Gospel was written, a Gospel that seems to be preoccupied by explaining why exactly the Temple had to fall. Draw your own conclusions.
QUOTE]
A non-major correction: the Pharisees were the survivors; they became modern Jews. Hillel, Akiva - both Pharisees. The Pharisees were big on Oral Law, practical interpretation of text adapting to the time, big on the intent of the Law.
The two significant other sects were the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Sadducees were the wealthy priestly class, much more biblical literalists, more centered around Temple rituals being proper in form. Without a Temple they ceased to be. The Essenes were a strict celibate order. Amazingly they failed to produce new followers.
“Pharisees” developed a negative connotation because of the New Testament’s portrayal of them.
But they were also, unlike the Pharisees, toadies for the Romans. After the Temple fell, there was a lot of soul searching and self-blame spreading among the Jews, this being an incredibly traumatic event, both culturally and theologically, and the Pharisees of the past caught a lot of that negative flak both from the Romans and among Jews in general. The Gospel of Mark may well be one example of that flak. Yes, the modern Jews were largely the Pharisees, but that’s because they remained true to the faith while others became Christians (who would doubly have reason to hate the Pharisees, who both denied their Messiah and got the blame for destroying their former beloved way of life), got scattered, etc. That doesn’t mean that the Pharisee movement didn’t get a lot of bad press after the Temple fell, even from itself.
If anyone would be an example of slovenly scolding hypocrites, it would be the Sadducees. But, suspiciously, the Gospel portrayal mainly ascribes THEIR attitudes to the bookish, critical Pharisees, while Jesus even gets to speak a few things that actually sound suspiciously like Pharisee ideas (though also suspiciously like the sayings of a lot of social critics of the day).
One of the more offensive statements I’ve read on the board in quite a while.
As I have since long abandoned the habit to try to explain to those “anti-semitism” screamers that the way they constantly - and with no end in sight -exploit the suffering of the Holocaust victims (and hereby constantly and without any sign of shame “forgetting” all the non-jewish victims) is working on the nerves of those who see right through this cheap PR tactic.
I’m sorry, but why should there be a “problem” in the ME with this particular movie?
Muslims don’t believe that Jesus died on that cross and there isn’t much said about the whole matter (let be mentioning who was “responsible”) in Al Qur’an.
I can elaborate a bit on the way this is explained in the text and in particular on how I see and explain it, but that is outside this thread.
Salaam. A
Personally, I’d be much more worried about people like Rashak Mani than Gibson’s film.
I would love for you to explain what you mean by that.
I think it’s quite clear what he meant by that.
Think they’ll show that Jesus was a jew? I can see that offending some people from all sorts of religions too…
Vis a vis this movie … I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion. But in general a return to “perfidious Jews” as a promoted image is, well, unhelpful and concerning, especially in a time when violent acts against Jews have increased in many parts of the world. Jews have been called “Christ-killers” as they have been murdered for many hundreds of years while Christ as a historical figure was killed by Romans as Rome killed many that they felt were political threats.
It took til Vatican II (1962) The Church to recognize their role in the promotion of antisemitism with an antideicide resolution. Pope John XXIII composed a prayer along those lines, it concluded: “Forgive us the curse which we unjustly laid on the name of the Jews. Forgive us that, with our curse, we crucified Thee a second time.”
Alde, when you first made statements like that you could perhaps be excused for ignorance. Now I know that you know better. You deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent what is said. In fact, the funny thing is that only you and London have mention the Holocaust or modern Israel in this thread.
Back to the interesting aside with Apos.
That’s a novel version of the history. Where did you get it from?
The Temple and Israel were destroyed because of failed rebellion, spearheaded by a group that were neither Pharisees or Sadducees - the Zealots. Now these were extremists! Osama has nothing on how these guys viewed the world. True Caligula and others really provoked some radical responses, but these guys were beyond the pale. The Zealots fought against each other and against those who they felt were not, well, zealous enough, but I’ve never before heard of anyone blaming the Pharisees for what the Zealots did.
The Sadducees were indeed the toadies … many High Priests were Roman appointees afterall, and they supported Rome.
The Pharisees OTOH were waiting for the true Messiah, in the Jewish meaning of the word: a leader who would call Jews home and lead a victory. Since they had seen no Messiah, they felt it was time to wait the Romans out. Of the groups they were most democratic (made sense, the Sadducees were priestly and that was classist by bloodline). They did not believe that the future was to be had as much by arms as by the schoolhouse. They were teachers above all else. Of course once they believed that the Messiah had come, they would be willing to take up arms … and many of them did think that Simon Bar-Kokhba was the Messiah … wrong again. Those who were not killed or taken into slavery by Rome in the Great Revolt were not missed this time. End of Israel as an ancient state. Judaism lived on only in the Pharisees, living in exile, continuing the emphasis on study and following the Oral Law.
Paul had been a Pharisee; his knowledge of this tradition is the reason that Pharisees were given such a bum rap. Paul’s version of Christianity was “antinominism” - he believed that The Law was now null and void. He believed that The Law existed to multiply Man’s chances to sin. This was a total rejection of the Pharisees POV in which The Law was a gift. Rejection of The Law was critical to winning non-Jewish converts; writing history to show the Pharisees as using The Law in empty hypocritical ways was a crucial part of the sales pitch.
I doubt that he foresaw how his version would be used in future years.
Perhaps Alde’s dyslexia is playing up again. Right, Thierry?
As for Gibson’s movie; I’m damned if I spend a cent on the thing. And I’m not even religious.
As many here have said, the movie isn’t out yet…
Still, I think it is fair to predict that if Mel Gibson says it is “True to sources”, then it will in all likelyhood not exactly portray the Jews in a very good light.
I think the main problem the various groups fighting this film have with it, is the instant notoriety that the name Mel Gibson will give it (Never mind that they are helping its PR immensly with the outcry - legitimate concerns do not always lead to intelligent action!) Millions of (on the whole) young and (on the whole) impressionable movie-goers will be exposed to several hours of essential anti-Judaism – because that is what the Passion is all about
I can see why people are worried about this. And I disagree that it will not be such a problem in the Western World - I think that is exactly where it will be a problem. Many people, who won’t give someone they perceive as a Right-Wing Religious Nutjob the time of day, will suddenly be exposed to a story presented to them by (to many) a Cultural Icon – Mel Gibson – who they may perceive as belonging to “Hollywood” and “The Mainstream”. And if They say so - well maybe there’s some truth to the story…
It matters not one whit whether Mel Gibson is or is not representative of Hollywood or “The Mainstream”. What matters is that he – and the movie – may be perceived as such. And it worries me, too.
Dani
I didn’t think you bothered seeing a movie first before judging it…
The promos were quite enough to judge by–and as it turned out, I was 100% right, so bite me.
It’s still amusingly hypocritical.
Come again?
I’m so sorry for you, but I never made any “statements out of ignorance”.
And where do I “deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent” anything here?
Just like LC indicated, I said that the whole “anti semitism” screaming by every single little thing that could be brought in relation to “Jew” is sickening upto making me and a lot of others vomit.
And yes I do speak here of “others” in the sense of EU’ers I know and my EU relatives as well. It makes my Western half vomit, actually.
My mother’s family was actively involved in helping Jewish citizens escape from the Nazis. They have put their lives in danger by helping them going underground, by hiding them even themselves, by providing them for papers and for traveling tickets (and paying for it and yes, also to the USA. )
I wouldn’t be here if they had been caught and killed since then my mother wouldn’t be born to begin with.
My Jewish friends know that. That is how they became friends of the family in the first place. They are the children and grandchildren of those my family could give help when there was need for help. I’m sure they would do exactly the same if things were reversed.
Those are the people who can tell you about the holocaust. Those are the ones who have the right to make such a claim.
They are certainly not the ones to make such a scandalous abuse of the suffering of relatives and friends by screaming “anti semitism” for utterly ridiculous reasons like a stupid movie.
It is sickening to hear the claim “anti semitism” ousted by every single thing that can be brought in relation to Jews and that might be seen as portraying a Jew in a role a certain (limited but extremely vocal and hugged by the media) section among the Jewish people don’t want a Jew to be portrayed.
I’m sorry, but if you make a movie that must be “historical” about what Christians believe as the truth about the life and death of Jesus, you can hardly replace the people demanding for his death by people cheering him, can you?
Those people, according the Bible, happened to be Jews, no?
So what?
Do you want to put them in costumes of Romans freshly imported from Rome because otherwise some Jews might start crying “anti semitism”? Or do you want a movie which seems to claim to follow the scriptures, bring the story of those scriptures as it is described in those scriptures.
By the way: Ever saw a Hollywood production picturing the “Arabs” (pick out at will" the “savage” Arab, the “terrorist” Arab, the “oppressing” Arab, the “wife beating” Arab and so on. My favorite is the “desert” Arab skilled in “seducing poor white women” )
Do you think these ridiculous films spread the ridiculous stereotyping and the serious, since widely spread, Western Islamophobia? I am most certain that they did and do.
So do you think I should start a lobby to claim that such movies shouldn’t be produced and if produced, not released?
Stay serious will you? Thank you.
Salaam. A
Not so much. I saw endless promos and ads and trailers for Cheaper by the Dozen. I have not seen one frame of Mel Gibson’s film. As much as I detest Gibson, I am witholding judgment.
But if you’re bound and determined to flame me, go right ahead and have your jollies.