Hi Mel, seems you've got an amen corner now. Be careful the company
you keep, however....

You've gotten a little worked up, especially near the end, and you
continue to misread and misparaphrase my posts, but I think you're
probably a decent guy by intentions, so I'll try to keep this post on
a level with reasonable debate, the occasional jab notwithstanding.

"mel" wrote in message m...
"I don't understand why
you wrote it, since it does not address anything I wrote."

It's common on NGs to either indicate by snip when you remove prior
contexts, or to paraphrase. You leave out what I respond to, leaving
the "it" impenetrable. The "it" in question was your belief that if
others did not believe in divinity, then it's implausible that they'd
get worked up over it 2000 years later (let me know if that's not a
fair paraphrase). But that had nothing to do with my comments (in my
original post "I would not care to guess...do most harm."), which
addresses anti-Semitic concerns of both the transition from text to
film, and Hutton Gibson open anti-Semitism. You quote some of that
next so I'll respond to your comments.

Yes it does and rather specifically. You made the following statement in
your original post.

snipI would not care to guess whether Mel harbors anti-Semitic thoughts as
his father does (and whom Mel has defended)....

Exactly why was this written? snip irrelevant Why did you make such a
disclaimed, "I would not care to guess...",

That's a pretty common prefatory phrase that means I'm not trying to
second guess Gibson's intent. I don't pretend to have ESP.

implicating declarative statement,

In the words of the Grinch, "Holidaywhobewhattie?" I suggest you not
try to using linguistic terms you're not familiar with or you'll
produce more howlers like this.

"whether Mel harbors anti-Semitic thoughts as his father does
(and whom Mel has defended)...." if in fact you weren't attempting to coerce

You mean persuade, right Mel? (With hat tipped to Kurt Russell in a
Gibson film.)

the reader into that very sentiment?

Whatever sinister thing you imagine me to have said, I'll try to
rephrase simply and straightforwardly. The original gospels are
anti-Semitic; medieval passion plays exaggerated the gospels'
anti-Semitism, and Gibson's film, while not as much a caricature as
most passion plays, draws more from them than from the gospels. That,
combined with his father's uncorrected views, makes it exceptionally
easy for an observer to wonder if the film is going to be one more
wedge between Christians and Jews.

The original gospels were written well after the destruction of
Jerusalem and the consequent, definite split of the new Christian cult
from its Jewish mother. Early Christians of Jesus' time were Jews
themselves, no doubt, but after Titus and the diaspora, the Christians
no longer thought of themselves as Jewish. There is a clear
progression of this thought from Mark to John—the latter is distinctly
interested in blaming Jews for Jesus' death, as anyone who has studied
a synoptic parallel can tell you. John is not considered one of the
synoptics in part because of that agenda. Check out Elaine Pagel's
thoughts on the matter:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_remnick

Passion plays were vile caricatures whose anti-Semitism can only be
denied by the likes of David Duke and Fletis. I have given some
bibliography above (in Fletis' thread) if you're interested, since you
do not sound as if you're familiar with passion plays.

Gibson's differences from the text of the passion section of the
gospels are interesting in this regard. They do not encourage anyone
to believe he has moved away from the anti-Semitic trend. Check out
this list: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html Is
Mel Gibson a philosemite? Dale Keiger summarizes the experience of two
notable men, Christopher Hitchens and Frank Rich, who respectfully
disagree and have the argument and political experience to back it up:
http://dalekeiger.com/archives/cat_politics.html

Those are the issues. I hope I've presented them more clearly here,
because I don't want you to misunderstand my perspective as you have
done to this point.

snip"..., but after seeing the movie I am convinced that it hardly conveys
the complex political atmosphere of Palestine then,..."

It wasn't intended to any more than Peal Harbor or Schindler's List was
intended to totally convey the complexity of Japan/Germany/USA. This point
is a tangent so I'll resume my point...

You're right, I did a poor job of conveying what was a dissatisfaction
with some of the character portrayals, and my impressions followed
political divisions. It seemed odd, for instance, that the Roman
leader was sympathetic and reasonable (a defensible reading of the
text, though contradicted by contemporary sources), yet his demeanor
filtered down to none of his subordinates, who were almost Monty
Python caricatures of sadism. Similar stereotypes arose with his
portrayal of the Sanhedrin. The source of both problems is that there
is little textual evidence for those characters, so they are left to
speculation. It's an interesting problem Gibson faced, and I'm
unsatisfied with his choices. They don't harmonize with what the text
does offer--they don't seem the most reasonable options--they are
divisive, and worst of all to me is that their influence is clearly
medieval.

snip"..and that uncritical viewers will blithely turn to Jews or, worse,
to the Romans as scapegoats."

Now let me get this straight. You say you don't see how my argument
concerning whether this story has the ability to do what in your own words
you not only imply but are convinced it does have the ability to do.

[unintelligible frag.]

I can't even phrase that sentence in a satisfactory manner it's so
paradoxical.

Yes...well, the unintentional irony of that last sentence following an
incomplete clause pretty much sums it up.

snip I do note that while he removed the English subtitles for a certain
phrase likely to elicit anti-Semitic sentiment to appease his critics (after
Pilate transfers responsibility, the Jews say, roughly, "let his blood be
upon us"), the Aramaic remains--which will not be unnoticed in those parts
of the world where it may do most harm."

Here again you state it may do harm. My argument is if you don't care about
the man and believe he was the Messiah then surely you aren't going to be
motivated to act harmfully on his account. On the other hand, if you do
believe he was the Messiah then surely you know his death was a gift freely
given by him and the reaction to receiving a gift isn't usually hatred.

I don't accept your reasoning on several grounds. First, even if one
were to accept his divinity, it doesn't follow that he will not act
harmfully on his account. Isn't that the point of Peter cutting off
the servant's ear? Peter was a believer, no? He still made fatal
mistakes (npi). On the other hand, examples abound of cultures
fighting and killing over people long dead whom they never believed
were Messianic figures. Mohammed, Gautama, and the pope come to mind.
You present a false dilemma.

It's real funny how in this part of your remarks you now criticize the
accuracy of the movie's inclusion of the dialog we find in the text as if
there were some malicious intent.

No, you misread again. I merely point out the hypocrisy of caving into
critics in the English subtitles while ignoring those edits in the
oral language. My point had nothing to do with "the accuracy of the
movie's inclusion of the dialog." [sic] How many times has this
happened in our conversation? How about reading more carefully? You
end up making straw man after straw man.

It's become very apparent that any interpretation of this story would not
have met with your approval.

Ah, the prophet in you comes out again. Good luck with that.

You would have the reader believe that the
salvation of man could only be understood by an educated scholar.

Since I've never said that or remotely implied anything like it, I
guess you've changed mantles from prophet to Procrustes. You are just
too focused on me rather than on my argument, which you consistently
misread then make up something that sounds like what you want to argue
against. Not a very good listener....

You would
have us believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian must in fact
represent all true Christians.

This is the same silly argument Fletis made, and my response is the
same: You bring up a point here that illustrates a common bit of
polemical sophistry committed by religious zealots. The argument goes
something like this: if someone objects to a wrong action by someone
or group from religion X, the polemicist then counters with, "Oh, but
they weren't true Xs, so the criticism isn't valid." By such means
they are able to insulate themselves from EVERY criticism. If you
genuinely think that Christianity has been without blame in the West
then I feel sorry for your parochial sense of history, not to mention
the Sunday-school level of logic. My impression is that true
Christians are brave enough to admit to the faults of their fellows.

snip "Are you trying to argue with me that
Christians historically have not blamed Jews or Romans for Jesus' death?"
That is exactly what I'm saying. Any hatred against the Jews or the Romans
behind the artificial guise of Christianity was motivated by another agenda.
You see..... this is what I regret dearly. You miss the point. You
underestimate the mindset of the true Christian. You also underestimate the
mindset of those who hate.

No, I don't miss the point—and the point is not reverting to a silly
definition of whatever you happen to mean by *true* Christian in order
to avoid facing the faults of your fellow Christians (who,
conveniently, become not "true" Christians only post-facto and only
when someone points to their flaws). You can have neither a clear
understanding of anti-Semitism, the "mindset of a true
Christian"—whatever that means—nor an understanding of hatred without
studying it carefully. I see no evidence in what you write that you
have.

You asked me if I've read any history of the
last 2000 years. Yes I have..... Have you read anything prior to this?

A bit. Do you want to compare degrees or something?

These people were persecuted long before Christ walked the earth. Read up
on Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). Read about the Maccabean revolt and
The Period of Independence (167-63 B.C.) also know as the Maccabean, or
Asmonean, or Hasmonaean period. This is the source of the sentiments that
permeate a hostile culture against the Jews in the East. Not the
crucifixion of Jesus.

If you have in fact read anything other than a quick dictionary entry
of the above, you did not understand it. The revolutions you speak of
were revolutions against Alexandrian successors. That's Greece
Mel--you know, the cradle of the WEST. In case your Old Testament
knowledge is as bad as your geography, I'll remind you that the causes
of EASTERN conflict between Israel and her neighbors involves one of
two cultures: Mesopotamian or Egyptian, whoever ruled Palestine at the
time. I guess you forgot about the Egyptian or Babylonian captivities.
Western anti-Semitism is all about killing Jesus, usury, cultural
isolationism and conversion, and has little to do with Eastern
anti-Semitism, which is about land.

For the West's involvement, you might try James Carroll, Constantine's
Sword: The Church and The Jews. It's not particularly scholarly (and
he is no historian), but it's an easy read whose main observations
hold water.

Even if the guise of Christianity was used to further
a hostile agenda that originated before Christ you can hardly blame this on
Christianity.

Recourse again to the "well they can't be true Christians then, can
they" argument? Not buying it. The Christian household is full of
blame for this. Your local library is best, but here's some
bibliography you might peruse:
http://www.library.ubc.ca/ereserve/relg309/

I'm sorry I didn't address your numbered list. It was too much of a
struggle to fathom your first paragraph.

???

snip
1) How much does the text focus on the bloody mangling of Jesus' body
during his punishment? Including the Messianic Strain of the Old Testament
which start in Genesis and end in Malachi, considering even his dying words
foretold in the Psalms,

Mel, we had already established that "the text" we were considering
relative to Gibson's movie was the passion narrative of the gospels.
It is telling that you feel the need to go outside them for evidence
though.

all four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John, the revealing of his injuries to his disciples before the assencion,

....as long as you specify that by injuries you mean only two: the
hands and the side. More on this later.

the epistles of Paul to the early Churches..... even the revelation of John
all mention the suffering of Christ.

"Mentioning the suffering of Christ": hmm, do you think that qualifies
as "focusing on the bloody mangling of Jesus' body during his
punishment?", or does it qualify your inclusion of it as yet one more
in a long line of answers to questions I did not ask? You show
absolutely no respect for the argument of someone who feels other than
you: how can you possibly hope not merely to convince others of your
argument, but to recognize when you yourself are wrong?

I'd be interested in what you have for Paul. I haven't read him lately
and don't remember anything of relevance. I read another poster talk
of Paul saying "we preach Christ crucified", as if the participle were
a noun—incorrectly, as in, "we preach of the crucifixion of Christ"
instead of "we preach of a Messiah who was crucified". The former
reading is what many Christians do, but I find no textual basis for
it. Same thing with notions of the cross: it was a representation of
Jesus' defeat of death; only later was the body added and then made an
object of worship.

Now, I could be wrong on this, I'm working from memory on the Pauline
stuff, so if you remember something else relevant then by all means
toss it in.

The bible doesn't say the blood was
red but we know it was. He was flogged and he was flogged in such a manner
to subvert the crowd from demanding more.

Ah, back to the prophet mode. And how else would you know whether the
crowd was subverted from demanding more? Oh, right, you saw the
movie....

Then he carried a cross up a
mountain and had nails driven into his hands and feet.

Huh. And all this time I thought it was Simon the Cyrenian who carried
the cross. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention to the movie.

I'm sorry if this
horrifies you but snip nonsense trying to explain god's feelings

The only thing that horrifies me is that you have no respect for
writing, mine or the scriptures.

How much does Gibson's movie? Remove the flashbacks, the garden and the
trial I would have to venture half the movie? would you say this was fair?
Let's say 75% of the movie which is approximately 2 hours long so roughly 90
minutes. A 90 minute depiction of the torture my savior faced on my behalf
for the forgiveness of all man's sins of a historical 12 hour period.

What does the discrepancy tell us? That you can't handle seeing 1/8 of what
Jesus willingly endured to secure your salvation.

All right Mel! Finally, some evidence offered, and further evidence
that you actually read one of my criticisms. And your generous nature
has allotted me 75%. It's too much, really, I can't accept that. How
about 25%, is that fair? I'm not going to count the actual crucifixion
because it was quick and to the point in the film so I have no
objection to it. About one quarter of the film? And a damn graphic
quarter too, I might add, since the quality is as important as the
quantity.

Here's what I did. I took my copy of a parallel gospels (Kurt Aland,
ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 3rd ed. (UBS, 1979)) and isolated the
section known as The Passion (Mt. 14-15, Mk. 26-27, Lk. 22-23, Jn.
13-19). The violence done to Jesus' body AS THE GOSPELS PORTRAY IT is
as follows (where no substantial difference exists between the
evangelists I have given the fullest narrative and footnoted the
others):

1) Then did [Caiaphas' soldiers] spit in his face, and buffeted him;
and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy
unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
2) And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by
struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the
high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear
witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
3) ...and when [Pilate] had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be
crucified. ...And when [Roman soldiers] had platted a crown of thorns,
they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they
bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the
Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the
head.
4) But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they
brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his
side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1) = Mat. 26.67-8 (cf. Mk. 14.65; Lk. 22.63-64). 2) = John 18.22-3. 3)
= Matt. 27.26, 29-30 (cf. Mk. 15.15, 17, 19; Jn. 19.1-3). 4) = Matt.
27.26, 29-30 (cf. Mk. 15.15, 17, 19; Jn. 19.1-3)

That's it, that's all there is. You're welcome to find more, but it's
not there. That's not much more than Luke's Annunciation: should we
embellish that in a film too, or is it only sex that can be
pornographic? Of course that's a rhetorical question: violence can be
just as pornographic.

My point is not merely that film is more graphic than print and
therefore more prone to a base titillation with violence and blood,
although that is an important consideration. It is more a surprise
that the choice of MML&J is not given much respect. THEY chose to
downplay that violence. Is Gibson so much smarter than them for
embellishing it?

For what it's worth, here's the statistics: all the violence passages
(even the parallel accounts) above amount to 323 words. Total number
of words in the Passion section: 13,558. That makes MML&J's focus on
violence to Jesus' body just a tad above 2% of the text.

Easy conclusion: Gibson's 25% is keenly obsessed with the wounds;
MML&J's 2% is not.

2)Is there a relationship between medieval Catholic depictions of Jesus' and
the saints' suffering, and sadomasochism? No.

You are in the minority among educated Christians (oh, sorry, I
forgot: they can't be true Christians if they hold this view....).
Anyone who's read the early church fathers knows the rather perverse
doctrines of martyrdom some of them shared. But let's get to the meat
(sorry again for the unintended puns): how about flagellants? Ever
read Boccaccio or Chaucer? Even kids who don't read know about Monty
Python caricatures of the flagellants. They existed Mel, they were
real. You don't want to face it, that's up to you.

What do most scholars, psychologists, and educated theologians say about
that relationship? I don't care.

Not only is this anti-intellectual (which I would argue is not the
hallmark of a true Christian) but it is paranoid. Persecution
complexes are common among Christians, but do you really think all
scholars are out to get you?

3) Is there a relationship between the medieval obsession with the
sufferings of Jesus and the contemporary fascination with torture?
Could be. Sick people do sick things.

Indeed they do, Mel. They still do.

4) Are there significant similarities between Gibson's movie and medieval
passion plays? The significance would have to be found in the motives of the
viewers. I'm sure there are some who see a source for entertainment. As I
previously answered, sick people do sick things. There was after all a
crowd gathered at the crucifixion sight. Do you suggest Mary attended for
the same reasons one of the Roman soldiers?

Completely missed the boat on this one too. The content of Gibson's
movie and medieval passion plays have nothing to do with their
audiences, and their similarities may be judged independent of the
audience. Not that the latter is not an interesting question, it just
wasn't mine.

snip

5) Gibson's father is a known wacko, a holocaus[t] denyer.
Surely an educated man such as yourself realizes that this arguement is
conjecture. I want your sources and verifications on this subject and don't
insult me with I heard so-in-so media personality report on this matter.

Your caveat is well taken, I don't know the man personally. Everything
I've read has been in newspapers and on the web, admittedly not
scholarly venues. Nevertheless, it looks trustworthy, and Gibson has
never said his father did not believe those things even when
interviewers (such as Diane Sawyer—is she good enough for you?) asked
him that point blank.

Would you accept the National Council of Churches' word on this?
http://www.wfn.org/2004/02/msg00160.html

Here's a general background on Hutton:
http://www.4reference.net/encycloped...on_Gibson.html

DAGS yourself, there's a ton of stuff out there. Even some of Hutton's
writings, if I remember. If it's even half true, it's no wonder Jews
were nervous about the prospect of the film.

Should the fact that Mel has written a modern passion play and has refused
to denounce his father's holocaust denials be of any concern? What concerns
me is your proposal that Mel Gibson owes you a personal denunciation of his
father.

(This is getting boring...) Reread what I wrote. Negative on 2 counts.
I never proposed a "personal" denunciation, nor one of his father. You
seem incapable of separating argument from author (I quote from my
question, "to denounce his father's holocaust *denials*". The direct
object of the verb denounce was not *father*, it was *denials*. And I
thought a public, not personal denunciation of those denials was in
order. Gibson didn't have to slam his father—I'm all for filial
piety—he could easily have disavowed those wacky teachings and
preserved his father's dignity at the same time. He didn't. Why? Maybe
Gibson shares them?

You who so easily criticize the Catholic snip

Well, I don't mean to, and I don't mean to offend any Catholics out
there. But there are a few things about the medieval church that do
bother me. Me and a few million other Protestants....

6) Is it possible to exaggerate Jesus' suffering, or to turn it into a
pornographic fascination with torture, blood, and punishment? Dude...you
scare me.

If you are ignorant of how this happens, then your fear of me will be
the least of your fears.

7) Are there textual evidences that argue against Mel's image of such
a severely beaten Jesus? Whoa!!! You mean all this time I assumed you knew
the text and yet you don't? You have the audacity to sit here and spew
forth incriminating and damaging statements that might be read by someone
searching for answers? There are scriptures about people like you.

I was trying to be fair and allow you to cite evidence pro or con
without the prior influence of my readings. You don't, so I will.

1) The paucity of NT texts that portray a bloody mangled Jesus, as
discussed above. MML&J disagree with Gibson as to the appropriateness
of obsessing on the image of the beaten Christ, in both degree,
quantity and quality.

2) According to Lk. 23.28-31 Jesus was composed well enough in mind
and body to pause mid-march (to Golgotha) and deliver a spirited
hortatory speech to the women who were following. No doubt left out of
the film because if would not fit the image as portrayed by Gibson.

3) When the soldiers draw lots for Jesus' clothing (John has the
fullest account at 19.23-24), it is obvious that the soldiers covet
it. Would you really want a soaking bloody rag-garment, as portrayed
in Gibson? Improbable that the Romans would've.

4) When the resurrected Jesus shows himself to the disciples (Lk.
24.38-40, Jn. 20.20; and later to Thomas, Jn. 20.24-27), he
specifically asks them to note the nail marks and the spear mark in
his side. If you saw the movie, then you know how improbable it would
be for anyone to distinguish a spear mark from the mass of bloody
gashes all along his body. Miracles are convenient at this point if
you'd like to argue them, but note that the text doesn't.

5) The film simply overdoes it. I've seen people beaten to within
inches of their lives, and some who died. Sure you could argue that
since Jesus is superhuman, he could do something superhuman like that.
But note that MML&J do not make recourse to such banalities.

I realize you can take issue with any one of those, but they are my
belief based in the text, which is more than you can say for the
opposite argument, relying on "artistic license" and such.

Parenthetically, regarding #2 (where I noted a passage left out of the
film because it was inconvenient). In a similar vein, note Jesus'
remark according to Luke: 22.35-38, also left out: And he said unto
them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he
that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he
that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say
unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,
And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning
me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And
he said unto them, It is enough.

8) Is the fact that he removed the English subtitles for a certain phrase
(one likely to elicit anti-Semitic sentiment) in order to
appease his critics (after Pilate transfers responsibility, the Jews say,
roughly, "let his blood be upon us"), yet allowed the Aramaic to
remain (which will not be unnoticed in those parts of the world where it may
do most harm) cause for alarm?

Not if accuracy is the intent. You know this very quote, "let his blood
be upon us", is a poignant irony for it was the very blood of Christ that
meant to save these people.... and here we see you once again up to you old
tricks.

No, accuracy was not the issue, hypocrisy was, and we've dealt with
this above. This is a "tricky" point only if you don't understand how
it's hypocritical to edit something in the subtitles because of
critical pressure but leave the oral language in. *That's* tricky.

and finally,
9) Where in the text does Satan appear as in Gibson's movie? In the Garden
of Eden and at the temptation of Christ. Other than that this was an
artistic license on the part of Mel Gibson

Ah, so that's what you call it when convenient, "artistic license".
Good to know. However, Gibson et al. have stated that the film follows
the scriptures. I find it does not.

but please....as you put it...
pretty please ...don't tell me that Satan's influence, in whatever form
wasn't present. snip

I wouldn't presume to know. The gospels do talk of it, but not as
Gibson presents it. Moreover, the point of #9, which you entirely
miss, is to question whether Gibson's vision of Satan is a reasonable
inference of the text (passion texts, if I need to spell it out). I
have already noted the troublesome fact that he portrays Satan as a
woman (cinematically I loved this, it was a beautiful theme
throughout; textually I find no fides). The episode of Judas' suicide
was laughable. When I saw those kids morphing I hadn't laughed so hard
since I first saw the Ewoks.

I have now explained myself to you to the best of my ability. I've answered
your queries and I've questioned your intent. I wish you peace. I've found
mine.

M

Et tu Mel, pax tecum. But not without my turn under the prophetic
mantle. "The Passion", like "Birth of a Nation", is a popular film
with passionate ethnic opinions. And like the Birth of a Nation, The
Passion will one day be viewed for its value as camp humor.

Vale,
H.