Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 08-08-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Presumably, the scholars got a copy of a script, which did not deprive Gibson of anything.

Sure it does. All copies of the script are the property of Gibson. And making a copy of the script without his authorization is most likely a breach of contract, at the very least.

Quote:

You - get ticked off at their self-righteousness? Okay. Sure.

Yes, I do.

Quote:

I thought that they got that attitude because they are religious. It's the sort of attitude that you see in a lot of Christians and Jews. They spend a lot of time thinking about morality and then trying to explain why people should do things they wouldn't do otherwise. I don't think it has a lot to do with scholarship per se.

Actually, I see much more self-righteous moralizing here than I do on most forums. And not from Christians.

Quote:

You have accused her of being in receipt of stolen property. I thought before that she was being accused of extortion.

I don't recall ever accusing her of extortion.

Quote:

In the article linked above, she did not call for the wrath of god to fall on Gibson. She said he might bear some moral responsibility for stirring up anti-Semitism, for which he might have to answer to his maker, but that is not the same as calling on God to strike him with boils or bad box office receipts. If you are going to keep claiming that she called for the wrath of god to be visited on Gibson, please come up with some of her language that means anything close to that.

We already went over the langauge. She was quite clear that she believes Gibson WILL have to answer to God for making the film. In fact, she takes great delight in the thought.

Quote:

The thread was started by Vorkosigan about the controversy. He threw in censorship to try to fit it into CSSSA, but now it's here in BCH. You injected the issue of the allegedly stolen manuscript into it.

Please spare the the forensic revisionionism Toto. The thread was not started as a discussion of hwo the film might impact the Jewish community.

Quote:

Then why doesn't Gibson arrange a screening for these scholars and ADL representatives so they can see for themselves? That would settle it. He'd rather drag out the controversy.

I doubt it would settle the controversy. And they pissed him off so he's not going to let them play.

Quote:

What will happen when this film is shown in Eastern Europe?

It will probably make some money.

Amen-Moses · 08-08-2003, 09:39 AM

What I find hilarious is that when Hollywood trashes real historical events like with The Patriot, Braveheart, U571 etc noone gives a damn but when they make a film about a complete fiction like the NT everyone is up in arms!

They should just put a disclaimer at the end of the film (like they did with U571) saying that it is a load of bollocks.

Amen-Moses

Toto · 08-08-2003, 01:06 PM

That gets back to the reason this thread is in this forum. Gibson is claiming that his film is "historically accurate."

Mel Gibson Screens Film

Quote:

Gibson has said the film is faithful to the account of the crucifixion in the four Gospels and is meant "to inspire, not offend."

. . . .

Paul Lauer, marketing director for Gibson's Icon Productions company, said a screening will be held within a month for Jewish leaders, whom he would not name. He said Gibson first wanted to vet it before Christian scholars for accuracy.

But he hasn't shown it to Christian scholars, he's shown it to Conservatives with no particular expertise, including the House Republicans and Matt Drudge.

Quote:

Lauer said the committee of scholars obtained a stolen, outdated script that is completely different from the rough cut of the film being screened. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an apology this spring after learning a staff member had obtained a draft, and the script was returned.

Boys said an Icon employee provided an intermediary with the script.

While Gibson said "The Passion" will be the most authentic account ever of the crucifixion, Boys said the script she read presented the Jews as more culpable for Christ's death than the Romans who executed him.

Doctor X · 08-08-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

What I find hilarious is that when Hollywood trashes real historical events like with The Patriot, Braveheart, U571

Well, some English complained. . . .

Since he is not basing the movie on any thing historical and will have to harmonize unhistorical texts, I am not the least bit interested in his historical accuracy. I love Excalibur but I know it is not history.

--J.D.

Toto · 08-08-2003, 04:44 PM

But Gibson claims historical accuracy.

Amy-Jill Levine has an article on beliefnet:

The real problem with the Passion

Quote:

. . .

Our scholarly panel's "agenda" was hardly sinister: We were concerned with biblically fidelity, historical accuracy, and the avoidance of anti-Semitism. While I have not seen Mr. Gibson's film, I have seen a script that has anti-Jewish components. Here are three examples that are already part of media coverage:

- Jesus' cross is manufactured in the Temple. this unbiblical and a-historical scene is analogous to asserting that the ovens of Auschwitz were constructed in the Vatican itself under the watchful eyes of Pius XII.

- The Roman governor Pilate--who, like all Roman governors of Judea, had the authority to appoint Jewish high priests--is intimidated and manipulated by a luxuriously garbed priest Caiaphas. Analogy: Those poor Nazi occupiers of mid-20th century Rome could not resist Vatican pressure to rid the city of Jews.

The problem with lumping all first-century Jewish leaders together is illustrated in Linda Chavez's August 6th CNSNews.com commentary. She said, among other things, that "Christ's death on the cross may have been ordered by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the Pharisee Caiaphas--following the judgment of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious court that judged Jesus guilty of blasphemy..." Any "New Testament 101" student knows that Caiaphas was not a Pharisee; he was, rather, part of the priestly aristocracy in league with Rome. That the Pharisees are the group who give rise to Rabbinic Judaism and ultimately the Judaism of today only makes her mistake worse. As for Pilate, he could not possibly have cared less about blasphemy: he executes Jesus as a political threat, the presumed "King of the Jews" as the inscription on the cross reads.

- Jews repeatedly and spontaneously torture Jesus, whereas the Romans need Satan's prompting. This is tantamount to saying that "the Jews" in Dachau tortured fellow Jews just because they felt like it, whereas the Nazis needed supernatural incitement.

. . .

As a filmmaker, Mr. Gibson knows that intention does not always determine result: a scene intended to be funny can fall flat; an anticipated blockbuster can flop. So too, a film that aspires to promote Christian faith can also easily promote anti-Judaism. How will Mr. Gibson's 'Passion' play before audiences with culturally ingrained anti-Jewish views, such as Orthodox Christians in much of Eastern Europe, or Muslims in Syria? (In 2001, President Assad commented publicly to Pope John Paul II that "the Jews" not only killed Jesus but also attempted to kill Muhammad.) While a number of conservative Catholics and evangelicals who have seen the film--Mr. Gibson is has been quite selective in choosing audiences--insist it has no anti-Jewish material, how would their own children respond if asked, "In the movie, who killed Jesus?" or "Did the Jews in the film seem very interested in money?" Every single response may be benign, but why take the chance?

Toto · 08-08-2003, 09:37 PM

Split between Evangelicals and Jews over the film

Quote:

The escalating row has exposed the fragility of the coalition of Jews and right-wing Christians which has formed over the Bush Administration's unwavering support for Israel. "There is a great deal of pressure on Israel right now," said Haggard. "For Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems short-sighted."

Gibson's critics say the ramifications go way beyond the film. "This is a story for which millions paid with their lives," Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre, told New York Newsday. "They were burned at the stake, killed in pogroms ... and it was those ideas that served as the foundations of the Holocaust. We have a right to be concerned."

Gibson's 'Passion' hearing whispers of anti-Semitism

Quote:

Mel Gibson brought his latest project, a graphic depiction of the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, to an invitation-only crowd at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston on Friday.

But if he was hoping to leave with assurances that Jewish leaders will drop their concerns about anti-Semitism, he may have been disappointed.

"We still have grave concerns," said Rabbi Eugene Korn, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Office of Interfaith Affairs in New York, as he left the private screening.

But they all signed confidentiality agreements.

Quote:

Though the film is a work in progress, Lauer did not say whether changes would be made based on the local comments.

. . .

Haggard didn't deny that Jews are portrayed unflatteringly. "But I am hyper-sensitive to anti-Semitism and things like that, and when I realized there was a controversy, I was surprised. I didn't see anything in the movie that was different, contentwise, than the passion plays I've watched all my life, or the Jesus movies I've watched all my life."

Vorkosigan · 08-09-2003, 01:44 AM

What really ticks me off is their self-righteousness. They are scholars you see, mere theft and intentional torts can't stand in the way of their superior outlook.

<Camera pans across midnight on the parched BC&H plateau. Somewhere in the background a wolf howls. A hammer thunks faintly on wood. Seated in the foreground, a grizzled veteran of many forays into this barren wilderness pokes dejectedly at the fire>

VETERAN: What? No sign of evidence that Gibson said the script was stolen prior to the negative review? What? Still no charges filed?

<lights pipe>

VETERAN: Some of these young'uns are just suckers for publicity stunts.

<camera pans slowly across the plain as the stars come out>

Toto · 08-09-2003, 10:19 AM

In spite of rejecting charges of anti-Semitism, Gibson is starting the rewrite

Quote:

. . .

Another Loyola Marymount professor who has been a consultant on the film for 18 months also defended it. Father William J. Fulco, a professor of ancient Mediterranean studies, said Gibson has omitted parts of the Gospels that would be especially offensive to Jews, such as the crowd shouting, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Fulco also said he is writing dialogue for the crowd scenes that show many of the Jewish citizens to be confused or outraged by the treatment of Jesus. But Fulco acknowledged that such efforts could only go so far. "You cannot escape that Jews were involved," he said.

He didn't find that in the holy scriptures.

Doctor X · 08-09-2003, 04:26 PM

Toto:

He is just finishing his Gospel According to St. Mel.

He had the advantage of a better budget and previews. . . .

--J.D.

Nic Tamzek · 08-14-2003, 08:37 AM

Hmm, I was thinking that this thread was hopeless, but it has improved in the last half page.

I understand that the main issues (at II, if not, sadly, in the press), is whether or not Mel Gibson's claims to "historical accuracy" (supported by a long list of ignorant conservative demagogues) have any validity at all given that the source material may be largely legend.

"Biblically accurate" would be a better term, but such subtle distinctions are not likely in the popular press.

But here is my main question:

What if anti-semitism is, in fact, 'Biblically accurate'? Is it not undeniable that some of the Gospels have a decided anti-Jewish bias, right there in the text?

No one (among the film's public critics or fans) seems to want to talk about this possibility. It may well be that medieval passion plays and Gibson's film exaggerate the anti-semitism, but the notion that anti-semitism is completely imposed on the NT, rather than significantly found within it, is in contrast with my limited learning on the topic.

E.g. an apparently serious article, although it moderates some previous claims about NT antisemitism, still concludes:

Quote:

The Fourth Gospel reflects the situation of the Johannine community both before and after its divorce from Judaism.113 In the earlier stages before the divorce, the gospel betrays no denunciations of "the Jews." Now, after the divorce, "the Jews" have become the enemy. In the earlier period, certain Christian views on Jesus, the Law, etc., were probably tolerated in local Jewish circles. Now these views, at least in their developed form, have become central issues in Jewish Christian confrontations. In the earlier period there had been certain instances of persecution by Jews throughout the Christian world, but such persecution apparently did not affect the Johannine community. Now, amid increasing tensions, Johannine Christians, no longer welcome in the Synagogue, were beginning to face Jewish persecution themselves, and the community situation left its mark upon the Gospel of John in its final stages of development.

Inevitably, the post-divorce situation of the Johannine community affected its view of the past. No longer could an evangelist from this community simply transmit a tradition that portrayed Jesus' death in largely political terms. While the Fourth Evangelist valued his tradition too highly to ignore it entirely, he did reinterpret it in the light of his own recent experience with the Synagogue. Thus throughout his gospel, there appear references to "the Jews" persecuting Jesus for breaking the Sabbath (5.:16), and particularly over Jesus' claim to divine sonship (5:18; 8:58f.; 10:33; 19:7; see 20:31f.). Later, a redactor114 apparently added his own experience that Jews generally were repulsed by Christian eucharistic teaching (6:51-60).

Unfortunately, the anti-Jewish teaching of the Fourth Gospel did not stop with its final redaction. John soon became one of the most influential writings in the early Church, and its popularity has continued to the present day.115 Its popularity has vastly increased the influence of the gospel's anti-Jewish teaching in Christian and pseudo-Christian circles. Today, we may learn to understand the anti-Jewish tenor of the gospel as the unfortunate outgrowth of historical circumstances. Such understanding in itself, however, will not prevent the gospel from continuing to broadcast its anti-Jewish message unabated.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cj...r/townsend.htm

nic

PS: Sorry if I missed a better thread to post this in, I'm mostly a E/C denizen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2003, 09:39 AM	#42
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	What I find hilarious is that when Hollywood trashes real historical events like with The Patriot, Braveheart, U571 etc noone gives a damn but when they make a film about a complete fiction like the NT everyone is up in arms! They should just put a disclaimer at the end of the film (like they did with U571) saying that it is a load of bollocks. Amen-Moses

08-09-2003, 01:44 AM	#47
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	What really ticks me off is their self-righteousness. They are scholars you see, mere theft and intentional torts can't stand in the way of their superior outlook. <Camera pans across midnight on the parched BC&H plateau. Somewhere in the background a wolf howls. A hammer thunks faintly on wood. Seated in the foreground, a grizzled veteran of many forays into this barren wilderness pokes dejectedly at the fire> VETERAN: What? No sign of evidence that Gibson said the script was stolen prior to the negative review? What? Still no charges filed? <lights pipe> VETERAN: Some of these young'uns are just suckers for publicity stunts. <camera pans slowly across the plain as the stars come out>

08-09-2003, 04:26 PM	#49
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Toto: He is just finishing his Gospel According to St. Mel. He had the advantage of a better budget and previews. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.