Gibson Film and Historical/Theological Accuracy (was: Censorship) [Archive I]

Toto

August 2, 2003, 01:20 PM

This seems to be inspired by Paula Friedrickson's article in the New Republic, (full text available only by subscription, but you can get a 4 week free trial.)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GIBSON. Mad Mel: by Paula Fredriksen (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030728&s=fredriksen072803)

The article is described here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/13781)

Another article in the NY Times {free registration required: one gory photo on the page.}

Movie arouses stir (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/national/02GIBS.html)

Now, seven months before its scheduled release on Ash Wednesday, the film has set off an uproar that both sides warn could undermine years of bridge building between Christians and Jews. The selected audiences who have seen the film defend it as the most moving, reverential � and violent � depiction of Jesus' suffering and death ever put on screen. Detractors, who have read a script but not seen the film, say it is a modern version of the medieval Passion plays that portrayed Jews as "Christ killers" and stoked anti-Jewish violence.

. . . .

The controversy has been cast by many of his supporters as the Jews versus Mel Gibson. But it began when several Roman Catholic scholars voiced concern about the project because of Mr. Gibson's affiliation with a splinter Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews.

Mr. Gibson has been screening "The Passion" for a few weeks for friendly audiences, but has refused to show it to his critics, including members of Jewish groups and biblical scholars. In Washington, it was shown to the Web gossip Matt Drudge, the columnists Cal Thomas and Peggy Noonan and the staffs of the Senate Republican Conference and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and others. In Colorado Springs, the capital of evangelical America, the film drew raves. A convention of the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative Roman Catholic order of priests, saw a preview, as did Rush Limbaugh.

. . .

People who have seen the movie say it is brutally graphic, dwelling at length on a scourging scene that renders Jesus a bloody piece of flesh before he is even nailed to the Cross. He is beaten with a leather strap studded with metal points that, when slapped across a tabletop, stick in the wood like spikes.

Roman soldiers administer the beating in the film, Mr. Hudson, the Catholic publisher, said. "By the time the Romans get through with him," Mr. Hudson said, "you've forgotten what the Jews might have done."

Mr. Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Mr. Lauer said, by underscoring Christianity's roots. The controversy, he added, has built a considerable buzz about the movie. "You can't buy that kind of publicity," he said.

The reference to the Senate Republican Conference gets it closer to this forum, but I'm still not sure.

Toto

August 2, 2003, 07:12 PM

I'm moving this from CSSSA to BCH.

Layman

August 3, 2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Toto
Has anyone threatened Gibson's movie with censorship? Will the Vatican put in on the Index? Would it be banned in Germany as hate speech?

The Vatican has no problem with the film. At least not any of which I have heard. The ruckus comes from a subgroup of the National Council of Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League. They published a joint report attacking the film, mainly claiming it was anti-semitic and that it followed the gospels to closely in some respects and did not follow them closely enough in other respects. They demanded many specific changes to the film even though they knew it was mostly finished. They threatened to attack the film publically and raise concerns about fostering anti-semitism unless Gibson bowed to their wishes.

Unfortunately, all of the criticism was based on a stolen manuscript. Fredrickson was one scholar among about eight who reviewed the script and wrote the joint report/demand.

Fredrickson's article actually came out much later. And I find it significant that she wrote it alone, without any attribution to the other scholars on the "ad-hoc" joint NCCB/ADL committee. Persoanlly, I think her article is a hyperbolic reaction to being caught with her hand in the cookie jar with the stolen manuscript.

I'm appalled at Fredrickson's article. She seems' hell bent on attacking the film as anti-semitic and is insisting that it remove references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death. Which is pretty bizarre for her because in her most recent book on Jesus she concludes that Josephus admits Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus and notes that if the Romans were really concerned with Jesus leading or causing an uprising, they would have gone after the Christians in Jersusalem. But all the historical evidence is that they did not. IMO, she's kind of lost it and has taken great offense to having been called on using a stolen manuscript. Academics shouldn't be bound by petty concerns as misappropriation and conversion.

Toto

August 3, 2003, 04:03 AM

The article appears to be available here (http://www.glyphs.com/forums/load/circle/msg0720065916411.html) and in pdf format here (http://annatopia.com/pics/dean/tnr20030728.pdf).

The article does not resemble Layman's caricature. The difference of opinion appears to be whether the film will stir up anti-Semitism, which is a serious issue. I don't see that she is calling for Gibson to remove all references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death; she is criticizing the ahistorical exaggeration of Jewish evil characteristics.

Layman

August 3, 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Toto
The article appears to be available here (http://www.glyphs.com/forums/load/circle/msg0720065916411.html) and in pdf format here (http://annatopia.com/pics/dean/tnr20030728.pdf).

The article does not resemble Layman's caricature. The difference of opinion appears to be whether the film will stir up anti-Semitism, which is a serious issue. I don't see that she is calling for Gibson to remove all references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death; she is criticizing the ahistorical exaggeration of Jewish evil characteristics.

It doesn't?

The script, when we got it, shocked us. Nothing of Gibson's published remarks, or of Fulco's and Gibson's private assurances, had prepared us for what we saw. Each scholar, independent of the others, wrote his or her own comments on the document. We then boiled them down, bulleted our points, and made the whole discussion easy to digest. The first section of our report explained the historical connection between passion plays and the slaughter of European Jews, the dress rehearsals for the Shoah. Then we summarized our responses to the script. We pinpointed its historical errors and--again, since Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism--its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation. We concluded with general recommendations for certain changes in the script.

Perhaps this is unclear to you. But it is not to me. Fredricksen's main complaint, and that of her original colleagues, was that the film was likely to stir up controversy because of its depiction of Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death. As a result, as Fredricksen states in this article, they recommended changes. Why she refers to them as "general recommendation" I do not know. The original report was pretty specific about what it wanted changedd.

Of course, I have the advantage of reading the orignal report demanding changes in the script. Have you?

Peter Kirby

August 3, 2003, 07:07 PM

Everyone, the name is Paula Fredriksen.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

August 3, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Layman

Of course, I have the advantage of reading the orignal report demanding changes in the script. Have you?

No - do you have a link to it?

Toto

August 3, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Everyone, the name is Paula Fredriksen.

best,
Peter Kirby

You may edit any misspellings. Thanks.

Toto

August 3, 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Layman
...
Of course, I have the advantage of reading the orignal report demanding changes in the script. Have you?

From Dramatizing the Death of Jesus (http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/news/dramatizing_the_death_of_jesus.htm) in the OP:

. . . In addition, the general counsel for the USCCB requested that we return the scripts that had been sent to us from the USCCB and to refrain from commenting on the contents of the screenplay we reviewed. We have returned the scripts as requested and have not released the contents of our confidential evaluation of it that was sent to Mr. Gibson. Contrary to a recent media report, we have not apologized to Icon or anyone else for evaluating the script. Neither have we "withdrawn" it. We stand by it.

What are you trying to tell me, Layman?

Layman

August 4, 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Toto
From Dramatizing the Death of Jesus (http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/news/dramatizing_the_death_of_jesus.htm) in the OP:

What are you trying to tell me, Layman?

Yes, from what I understand the NCCB participants has been more cooperative in returning the script. Note that the scholars listed in the article are only four of the eight on the committee.

Layman

August 4, 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Toto
No - do you have a link to it?

No, I do not believe it is available on the internet.

Toto

August 4, 2003, 02:37 AM

I see I was unclear. They say that "have not released the contents of our confidential evaluation of it that was sent to Mr. Gibson." They are writing as Catholics but there is no indication that the Jewish scholars are at odds with them on strategy.

Where did you find a copy?

Layman

August 4, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Toto
I see I was unclear. They say that "have not released the contents of our confidential evaluation of it that was sent to Mr. Gibson." They are writing as Catholics but there is no indication that the Jewish scholars are at odds with them on strategy.

Where did you find a copy?

I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy." You seemed to be absolving the group of wrongdoing because they claim they have returned the stolen manuscript and/or its copies. I merely pointed out that only some of the scholars have claimed to have done so--the Catholic ones.

Do not fret, there was nothing inappropriate about the copy I reviewed or how it was obtained.

Toto

August 4, 2003, 12:19 PM

You keep trying to spin this to put some blame on the scholars. None of them seem to think that they solicited or received a "stolen" copy.

It's just a way of diverting attention from the question of anti-Semitism and the connection between Passion Plays and the pogroms that paved the way for the Holocaust. I think some arguments can be made against Fredriksen's position on the grounds that social conditions are different now, but there has been an upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe lately. I don't think that the issue is trivial.

Layman

August 4, 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Toto
[quote]You keep trying to spin this to put some blame on the scholars. None of them seem to think that they solicited or received a "stolen" copy.

Where do any of them deny receiving a stolen copy of the manuscript? All the reports I've seen they either dodge the issue, admit its unauthorized, but argue they thought Gibson "knew" they had it.

It's just a way of diverting attention from the question of anti-Semitism and the connection between Passion Plays and the pogroms that paved the way for the Holocaust. I think some arguments can be made against Fredriksen's position on the grounds that social conditions are different now, but there has been an upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe lately. I don't think that the issue is trivial.

Manuscript theft is a serious issue. Especially when its an earlier version. As for the film causing anti-Semitism, that's a scurilous charge. You know as well as I do that Europe is almost completely secularized, except for the growing Islamic immigrant community. And its mainly Islamic fundies in Europe who have been responsible for the uptick. Though I agree that the leftist European governments haven't done enough to stop it.

Toto

August 4, 2003, 01:01 PM

No one claims that the film would cause anti-Semitism, only that it would feed into an underlying strain of anti-Semitism that predates Christianity.

Pointing out the historical inaccuracies in the film's sources seems like useful work for theologians.

I think that both the Catholic scholars and Fredriksen have dealt with the "stolen manuscript" red herring.

Layman

August 4, 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Toto
No one claims that the film would cause anti-Semitism, only that it would feed into an underlying strain of anti-Semitism that predates Christianity.

I disagree with you that no on claims this.

Pointing out the historical inaccuracies in the film's sources seems like useful work for theologians.

I have my own problems with the film, such as having the Romans speak latin instead of Greek. But I haven't framed my concerns on a stolen manuscript and attempted to dictate changes in the film under the threat of a PR war.

I think that both the Catholic scholars and Fredriksen have dealt with the "stolen manuscript" red herring.

I agree that the Catholic scholars did, by returning the manuscript(s). Fredrikesen, to my knowledge, has not. Nor have the ADL participants.

Some seem to think that because they are scholars they were entitled to exploit stolen property. I disagree with that very strongly.

Vorkosigan

August 5, 2003, 12:04 AM

Layman --

are you sure the script was stolen? Fredriksen's account seems to suggest that they got hold of the script from Gibson through Icon sources. Further, she specifically points out that the charge of theft of script is a canard attributable to (who else?) lawyers for Icon, as part of the larger spin, attack, and disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting these critics.

"These two assertions--that the script was purloined, and that the final film is quite different from the script--have been endlessly repeated in numerous follow-up stories in Reuters, the New York Daily News, and elsewhere. NewsMax.com even had the chutzpah to insinuate that the scholars had leaked their own "supposedly confidential report" to the news media."

She adds in direct rebuttal of the "stolen" charge:

"In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it."

This writing is scholarly reserve and restraint. The script was certainly not "stolen." The whole thing was a setup by Gibson to distance himself from the consequences of NT criticism -- plausible deniability. If the critics like it, he would be covered with glory, and if they said it was trash, then he could claim they didn't see the real script, and anyway they didn't have his permission. I'll bet the whole strategy was laid out before hand. You're a functioning lawyer, Layman. Don't you know a setup when you see one?

Vorkosigan

Layman

August 5, 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Layman --

are you sure the script was stolen?

Absolutely. Which is why the NCCB returned their versions.

Fredriksen's account seems to suggest that they got hold of the script from Gibson through Icon sources.

No, it does not.

Further, she specifically points out that the charge of theft of script is a canard attributable to (who else?) lawyers for Icon, as part of the larger spin, attack, and disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting these critics.

I know what she charges. And her defensiveness reinforces the fact that she is aware that the manuscript was stolen.

Come on. You guys are letting your usual anti Christian bigotry cloud your judgment. Would Icon give the ADL and NCCB early manuscripts of an incomplete film without some signing of confidentiality? Of course not.

She adds in direct rebuttal of the "stolen" charge:

"In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it."

She admits the manuscript was not provided by Icon. It was stolen. And that Gibson had point people to deal with those who were worried about anti-semitism in a Jesus film is unsurprising. Nor is there any reason to suppose that all those who have raised the spector had stolen manuscripts. Many have voiced such concerns without having seen the stolen manuscript.

This writing is scholarly reserve and restraint.

Accusing Gibson's film of causing anti-Jewish attacks in Poland and Spain and hoping God takes judgment on Mel is scholarly reserve and restraint? Do you have any integrity or do you just write this stuff with no conscience. Few scholars I know wish the wrath of God on movie producers who don't makes films as they wish they would.

PF: When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.

When, not if. And, Gibson will have to answer to God.

In what way are these comments scholarly? Or restrained?

Good grief. How pathetic.

The script was certainly not "stolen."

It certainly was stolen. If they signed for an authorized copy let them show the documents? They can't. Because they had no authorization.

The whole thing was a setup by Gibson to distance himself from the consequences of NT criticism -- plausible deniability. If the critics like it, he would be covered with glory, and if they said it was trash, then he could claim they didn't see the real script, and anyway they didn't have his permission. I'll bet the whole strategy was laid out before hand. You're a functioning lawyer, Layman. Don't you know a setup when you see one?

All baseless speculation contradicted by their own admissions. Do you really think Gibson is naive enough to think that an ad-hoc committee by the ADL is going to like a film made by a traditional Catholic based on the gospels?

The manuscript was stolen. The NCCB realized they got caugth with their hand in the cookie jar and have returned their scripts. Others apparently have refused to do so.

It amazes me how certain you are about things you are truly ignorant regarding, Vork.

Vorkosigan

August 5, 2003, 04:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman
Absolutely. Which is why the NCCB returned their versions.

I know what she charges. And her defensiveness reinforces the fact that she is aware that the manuscript was stolen.

But Layman, she says specifically that the charge of theft is "false." So she is not "aware" that it was stolen. She gives a somewhat detailed account of how the manuscript came to be reviewed.

Come on. You guys are letting your usual anti Christian bigotry cloud your judgment. Would Icon give the ADL and NCCB early manuscripts of an incomplete film without some signing of confidentiality? Of course not.

Yes, that was Fredriksen's point. Here's what she says:

In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it.

Two points she clearly made (1) the script was not stolen even though they had no formal permission from Gibson and (2) the fact that confidentiality was required is an argument in support of (1). In other words, you're making her case for her. How could Icon demand confidentiality on a stolen script? The whole thing is a scam, Layman.

She admits the manuscript was not provided by Icon. It was stolen.

No, it was provided by Icon's point man, Fulco. The scholars were set up in a publicity stunt....

And that Gibson had point people to deal with those who were worried about anti-semitism in a Jesus film is unsurprising. Nor is there any reason to suppose that all those who have raised the spector had stolen manuscripts. Many have voiced such concerns without having seen the stolen manuscript.

No kidding. It's a touchy subject. And the manuscript was not stolen. So unless you have evidence that it was stolen, this slander will have to cease. Has anyone been charged in this "theft?" No, because there was no theft.

Accusing Gibson's film of causing anti-Jewish attacks in Poland and Spain and hoping God takes judgment on Mel is scholarly reserve and restraint?

Here is what Fredriksen says:
Anti-Semitism is not the problem in America that it is in the rest of the world. (The hateful e-mails that we have received have been balanced by others, from church leaders of inter-faith efforts across the country, expressing their support and their concern.) But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.

Is this worry justified? Yes. Does she express hope that Gibson will suffer God's judgment? No. She expresses her belief -- same as yours -- that God judges humans when they commit sin.

Do you have any integrity or do you just write this stuff with no conscience.

Layman, I have not attacked you or your religion in this manner in this thread. Please stop.

Few scholars I know wish the wrath of God on movie producers who don't makes films as they wish they would.

Since she didn't wish the wrath of God on him "for making a film the wrong way" but because of its possible effects on anti-Semitism among Christian populations in Europe and elsewhere, I do not know where this comment comes from.

When, not if. And, Gibson will have to answer to God.

In what way are these comments scholarly? Or restrained?

Why yes. Think of all the other things she could have said about Gibson, but refrained from saying. For example, just think of the colorful language that could have been used to describe the tactics of his lawyers. This same point was made by the team's report that I linked above:

In this era, when ancient Christian antisemitic motifs are being recirculated widely because of international conflicts, any Christian producer of a dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus has a considerable moral responsibility.

I quite agree.

It certainly was stolen. If they signed for an authorized copy let them show the documents? They can't. Because they had no authorization.

No problem. Let Icon file charges. Why not? Because there was no theft. Because Gibson let them have a script as part of a publicity-generating set-up. Fredriksen was right about one thing. They were naive. As the team wrote:

Since our evaluation was completed, media reports have made public the claim of Icon Productions that the script we reviewed was unauthorized. Our knowledge at the time of our review was that persons associated with the production, including Mel Gibson himself, were aware that this evaluation was being done and had agreed to receive it.

In other words, they reviewed the manuscript legally forwarded to them from higher-ups in good faith. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please forward it.

All baseless speculation contradicted by their own admissions. Do you really think Gibson is naive enough to think that an ad-hoc committee by the ADL is going to like a film made by a traditional Catholic based on the gospels?

Nope. That's why I think it was a publicity stunt. "Look at the Catholics and Jews persecuting my film!" he can say now, and generate even more sales. A neat set-up, completely amoral. No doubt dreamed up by the lawyers now putting out disinformation that apparently have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

It amazes me how certain you are about things you are truly ignorant regarding, Vork.

LOL. Evidence that the manuscript was stolen? For example, how was Icon able to get scholars to agree to confidentially examine a document which was stolen? And why would eight scholars of integrity agree to examine a document they knew was stolen? And why did accusations of theft occur only after the negative review was forwarded? And if the documents were stolen, how was it that they were forwarded from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (UCCSB). Did the UCCSB steal them, or what?

Tell you what. You can make your case a lot more strongly if you can show me that a claim of theft was made during the review process and long prior to the release of the negative review. In fact, no accusation of theft was made until May 16, although the script had been reviewed three weeks earlier, over Easter. In other words, a month went by, during which the Ad Hoc group communicated its results to Icon, but no accusation of theft was made.

We're looking at a publicity stunt, Layman. Anyway, why are you so emotionally invested in this? Do you think that Fredriksen's fears are unreasonable?

Vorkosigan

Toto

August 6, 2003, 04:26 PM

The Los Angeles Times has taken a critical stance on Gibson and his theology:

"Passion" shaping up as Gibson's lethal weapon (http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-rutten6aug06,2,7581330.column?coll=cl-home-more-channels) {unfortunately only available with a paid subscription to the LA Times or $4.95/mo fee.}

Watching Mel Gibson cleverly build interest in his unreleased film on Christ's execution is like watching an unwholesomely willful child playing with matches.

The immediate temptation may be to let the little brat learn the lesson that burnt fingers will teach. That impulse, however, is quickly overcome � not only because no decent person stands idly by while pain is inflicted, but also because, if the kid starts a fire, other people may be hurt.

. . .

But there is more than clever marketing behind Gibson's coyness. What he and his coworkers need to avoid at all cost are discussions of the religious convictions he has said led him to make the film. The actor often is described as a "devout" or "serious" Catholic. He is not, in fact, a Roman Catholic. He and his family are members of one of the so-called traditionalist splinter group that broke with the Roman Catholic Church over the reforms made by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s.

. . .

Meanwhile, Gibson maintains an equally studied silence about the views of his father, Hutton, a well-known traditionalist "theologian," who also happens to be a Holocaust denier and "sedevacantist," ("the seat is empty" in Latin), who believes there has been no pope since the conclave that elected John XXIII was subverted by a Jewish/Masonic conspiracy.

the_cave

August 6, 2003, 05:20 PM

For all I know, the film is in fact disturbingly anti-Semitic. However, the fact remains that almost no one has bothered to either actually say it is or not, or EVEN TO DESCRIBE THE POTENTIALLY ANTI-SEMITIC CONTENTS.

The Klinghoffer article that Vorkosigan cites in the OP is the FIRST mention I have seen of any potentially anti-Semitic elements in the film.

The most irritating thing about the Friedriksen article was, she does not anywhere come out and say what it is that one might find offensive. Read it carefully (if you're a subscriber, that is, though you can sign up for a free trial if you like); she doesn't describe even one scene from the film that could either be construed to be anti-Semitic, nor does she in fact make this claim, or even suggest it, for even one element of the film that she does describe. She merely makes dark insinuations about what the film "might" or "could" do to rouse up anti-Semitic reactions. [edited from: "so to rouse up"!! Whoops.]

(While I'm at it: "dress-rehearsals for the Shoah"?? Friedriksen's certainly entitled to her opinions, but perhaps unelaborated historical interpretations like this should be kept out of supposedly objective journalism until such time as they are more widely accepted. I suppose I could be wrong to say that.)

the_cave

August 6, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Toto
The Los Angeles Times has taken a critical stance on Gibson and his theology:

The actor often is described as a "devout" or "serious" Catholic. He is not, in fact, a Roman Catholic. He and his family are members of one of the so-called traditionalist splinter group that broke with the Roman Catholic Church over the reforms made by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s.

The LA Times either needs to hire better fact-checkers, or someone somewhere needs to provide an explanation. The WSJ has previously reported that Mel Gibson attends a perfectly orthodox Catholic church (the same that Martin Sheen attends, I believe). Yes, many of his family members attend forbidden Tridentine masses and are Sedevacanti. But to my knowledge, Mr. Gibson doesn't.

Look, I'm not really trying to defend the guy, but he's being attacked by people who have NEVER SEEN THE FILM IN QUESTION, using false and ad hominem attacks. Can we maybe just wait until it ACTUALLY COMES OUT until we critique it?

Toto

August 6, 2003, 06:22 PM

Gibson has allowed selected conservatives to see the film, but none of his critics. (It appears to be part of his marketing plan to keep the opposition fuming.)

Cal Thomas liked it (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08062003/commenta/81562.asp)

Claims he is a Traditionalist Catholic (http://www.americandaily.com/item/1627)

Mel Gibson is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. He is a Traditionalist Catholic--likely a deliberately chosen confusing name for a loosely interconnected group of dissidents who hue to pre-Vatican II procedures and frequently sir in an abundance of whatever dictates suit their passing fancies. The late French Archbishop Lefebvre brought the movement brief international notoriety a few decades ago.

The actor does not hide his disdain for the Catholic Church. In a January 2003 interview with Time, he condemns Vatican II, saying it �corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." The 40-year gap between the colloquium and the current scandal is conveniently not addressed.

The Mad Max star recently funded the construction of a large Traditionalist church in California with no ties to any Catholic diocese. Rituals at this church have a degree of secrecy not found in mainstream Christian religions. New York Times Reporter Christopher Nixon needed to obtain permission from a church elder--a role not regularly filled in the genuine Catholic faith--before attending a Sunday service. He was understandably asked to refrain from talking to anyone while the Mass progressed. Suggesting a near cultist sequestration he was also informed that anyone seen conversing with him "will not be welcome back at our church again."

I haven't seen a reference to the WSJ article, and the idea that Gibson is a Traditionalist Catholic seems widespread. (Is Albert Cipriani still around?)

Doctor X

August 6, 2003, 06:36 PM

Friedriksen's certainly entitled to her opinions, . . .

For what it is worth, I watched Bill O'Reilly to see if anyone wrote in correcting his claims about Tacitus and Josephus. He had this person on--she did not do well answering rather relaxed questions. She continually cited John as if it was an accurate history.

Enough!

Let him release the film.

See what it does.

Let the chips fall where it may.

This is beginning to remind me of Malcom Mugeridge and others condemning The Life of Brian without having seen the film.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

August 7, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by the_cave
For all I know, the film is in fact disturbingly anti-Semitic. However, the fact remains that almost no one has bothered to either actually say it is or not, or EVEN TO DESCRIBE THE POTENTIALLY ANTI-SEMITIC CONTENTS.

(While I'm at it: "dress-rehearsals for the Shoah"?? Friedriksen's certainly entitled to her opinions, but perhaps unelaborated historical interpretations like this should be kept out of supposedly objective journalism until such time as they are more widely accepted. I suppose I could be wrong to say that.)

Such unelaborated interpretations should be kept out....especially if one has signed a confidentiality agreement not to mention them in public, as Fredriksen and the others have. ;)

Vorkosigan

the_cave

August 7, 2003, 02:56 PM

Layman

August 7, 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman
Absolutely. Which is why the NCCB returned their versions.

I know what she charges. And her defensiveness reinforces the fact that she is aware that the manuscript was stolen.

But Layman, she says specifically that the charge of theft is "false." So she is not "aware" that it was stolen. She gives a somewhat detailed account of how the manuscript came to be reviewed.

She does? According to her, who gave the ad-hoc committee the manuscript?

Come on. You guys are letting your usual anti Christian bigotry cloud your judgment. Would Icon give the ADL and NCCB early manuscripts of an incomplete film without some signing of confidentiality? Of course not.

Yes, that was Fredriksen's point. Here's what she says:

In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. [b]Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it.

Two points she clearly made (1) the script was not stolen even though they had no formal permission from Gibson and (2) the fact that confidentiality was required is an argument in support of (1). In other words, you're making her case for her. How could Icon demand confidentiality on a stolen script? The whole thing is a scam, Layman.

She provides no foundation for your conclusions. She doesn't seem to know where the script came from. And she doesn't say that Gibson or Icon made them promise confidentiality. Fisher did. And Fisher is just as vague about where the script came from as she is.

She admits the manuscript was not provided by Icon. It was stolen.

No, it was provided by Icon's point man, Fulco. The scholars were set up in a publicity stunt....

That's a flat-out lie Vork. You are libelling the man. Where does anyone claim that Fulco gave the ad-hoc committee the script?

And that Gibson had point people to deal with those who were worried about anti-semitism in a Jesus film is unsurprising. Nor is there any reason to suppose that all those who have raised the spector had stolen manuscripts. Many have voiced such concerns without having seen the stolen manuscript.

No kidding. It's a touchy subject. And the manuscript was not stolen. So unless you have evidence that it was stolen, this slander will have to cease. Has anyone been charged in this "theft?" No, because there was no theft.

Ha. You are the one slandering Falco. The script was stolen.

Accusing Gibson's film of causing anti-Jewish attacks in Poland and Spain and hoping God takes judgment on Mel is scholarly reserve and restraint?

Here is what Fredriksen says:
Anti-Semitism is not the problem in America that it is in the rest of the world. (The hateful e-mails that we have received have been balanced by others, from church leaders of inter-faith efforts across the country, expressing their support and their concern.) But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.

Is this worry justified? Yes. Does she express hope that Gibson will suffer God's judgment? No. She expresses her belief -- same as yours -- that God judges humans when they commit sin.

None of which bears any resemblence to "scholarly reserve and restraint."

Do you have any integrity or do you just write this stuff with no conscience.

Layman, I have not attacked you or your religion in this manner in this thread. Please stop.

I'm shocked out how you invent things to justify your own prejudices.

Few scholars I know wish the wrath of God on movie producers who don't makes films as they wish they would.

Since she didn't wish the wrath of God on him "for making a film the wrong way" but because of its possible effects on anti-Semitism among Christian populations in Europe and elsewhere, I do not know where this comment comes from.

Dodge. Wishing the wrath of God on someone for the film they are making is not scholarly reserve and restraint. It's completely uncalled for.

When, not if. And, Gibson will have to answer to God.

In what way are these comments scholarly? Or restrained?

Why yes. Think of all the other things she could have said about Gibson, but refrained from saying. For example, just think of the colorful language that could have been used to describe the tactics of his lawyers. This same point was made by the team's report that I linked above:

In this era, when ancient Christian antisemitic motifs are being recirculated widely because of international conflicts, any Christian producer of a dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus has a considerable moral responsibility.

I quite agree.

I would expect you too.

It certainly was stolen. If they signed for an authorized copy let them show the documents? They can't. Because they had no authorization.

No problem. Let Icon file charges. Why not? Because there was no theft. Because Gibson let them have a script as part of a publicity-generating set-up. Fredriksen was right about one thing. They were naive. As the team wrote:

Since our evaluation was completed, media reports have made public the claim of Icon Productions that the script we reviewed was unauthorized. Our knowledge at the time of our review was that persons associated with the production, including Mel Gibson himself, were aware that this evaluation was being done and had agreed to receive it.

What is your evidence that Gibson let them have the manuscript? Who says that? And who fingers Falco? You are making crap up.

In other words, they reviewed the manuscript legally forwarded to them from higher-ups in good faith. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please forward it.

They were caught red-handed. They won't say where they got the manuscript from. No one is claiming that Falco gave it to them. Perhaps you should provide evidence for that which no one has alleged.

All baseless speculation contradicted by their own admissions. Do you really think Gibson is naive enough to think that an ad-hoc committee by the ADL is going to like a film made by a traditional Catholic based on the gospels?

Nope. That's why I think it was a publicity stunt. "Look at the Catholics and Jews persecuting my film!" he can say now, and generate even more sales. A neat set-up, completely amoral. No doubt dreamed up by the lawyers now putting out disinformation that apparently have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

No set up at all. Gibson never game them the script. You are dreaming all this up.

It amazes me how certain you are about things you are truly ignorant regarding, Vork.

LOL. Evidence that the manuscript was stolen? For example, how was Icon able to get scholars to agree to confidentially examine a document which was stolen?

Icon did not get them to agree to confidentiality. Where did Paula say she had a confidentaility agreement with Icon? And if Gibson is now claiming its stolen, he's already breached the agreement and they would be free to tell the press anything they wanted. Again, you are making things up out of thin air.

And why would eight scholars of integrity agree to examine a document they knew was stolen?

To protect the Jews against a surge in anti-semitism, of course. It's apparently their unique moral duty to do so.

And why did accusations of theft occur only after the negative review was forwarded? And if the documents were stolen, how was it that they were forwarded from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (UCCSB). Did the UCCSB steal them, or what?

Paula is only speculating that Gibson knew they had the script.

No, the UCCSB did not steal them. But they got it from someone who did.

Tell you what. You can make your case a lot more strongly if you can show me that a claim of theft was made during the review process and long prior to the release of the negative review.

This is irrelevant unless it's proven that Gibson knew that they had the manuscript all along.

In fact, no accusation of theft was made until May 16, although the script had been reviewed three weeks earlier, over Easter. In other words, a month went by, during which the Ad Hoc group communicated its results to Icon, but no accusation of theft was made.

What's your point? That Gibson took his time to respond? A few weeks? That's hardly an undue delay in such legal matters. They probably tried to figure out where the script had come from.

We're looking at a publicity stunt, Layman. Anyway, why are you so emotionally invested in this? Do you think that Fredriksen's fears are unreasonable?

I'm so interested because I know you are flat wrong. And yes, Fredriksen's fears are unreasonable. As are her hopes for godly retribution.

Layman

August 7, 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Such unelaborated interpretations should be kept out....especially if one has signed a confidentiality agreement not to mention them in public, as Fredriksen and the others have. ;)

Vorkosigan

Lies. Fredriksen has no confidentiality agreement with Icon. If so, let her show it to us and explain how she got the manuscript. And if there had been a confidentiality agreement with Icon is would be voided by Icon's allegations of theft.

Gibson did not provide the manuscript to the ad-hoc committee.

There is no confidentiality agreement between Icon/Gibson and the members of the ad-hoc committee. Apparently, Fisher insisted that the committee keep it hush hush for his own reasons, one of which was probably because they had a stolen manuscript.

Besides, if you read the April 22, 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times, Korn was complaining that Gibson and Icon had refused to provide a copy of the manuscript.

And why did the NCCB return its copies of the manuscript if it had an agreement with Gibson for them to review it?

If I were their lawyers, I'd be running to the Court room with my libel and slander complaints ready for filing. They have failed to do so. Instead, the NCCB gave in.

Layman

August 7, 2003, 04:51 PM

Icon did not respond to the request to see the script. But someone leaked a copy to one of the scholars, the Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, a professor of social ethics and the director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies program at the Catholic Theological Union. Father Pawlikowski said in an interview that the script came from a friend who got it from another person whom he did not know.

http://www.dickstaub.com/links_view.php?record_id=3238

Toto

August 7, 2003, 05:08 PM

originally posted by Layman

Lies. Fredriksen has no confidentiality agreement with Icon. If so, let her show it to us and explain how she got the manuscript. And if there had been a confidentiality agreement with Icon is would be voided by Icon's allegations of theft.

Gibson did not provide the manuscript to the ad-hoc committee.

There is no confidentiality agreement between Icon/Gibson and the members of the ad-hoc committee. Apparently, Fisher insisted that the committee keep it hush hush for his own reasons, one of which was probably because they had a stolen manuscript.

Besides, if you read the April 22, 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times, Korn was complaining that Gibson and Icon had refused to provide a copy of the manuscript.

And why did the NCCB return its copies of the manuscript if it had an agreement with Gibson for them to review it?

If I were their lawyers, I'd be running to the Court room with my libel and slander complaints ready for filing. They have failed to do so. Instead, the NCCB gave in.

Oh come on, Layman. Someone in Gibson's organization could have <wink wink> taken it upon himself or herself to "help things out" by leaking a copy of the script. That would allow Gibson to maintain plausible deniability, while getting the desired reaction and the desired publicity. That's how the White House does it.

In that case, calling it "stolen" is just misdirection.

And the NCCB may just not be as litigious as you think they could be. There are a number of possible reasons for that other than thinking they didn't have a case.

Layman

August 7, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Toto
originally posted by Layman

Oh come on, Layman. Someone in Gibson's organization could have <wink wink> taken it upon himself or herself to "help things out" by leaking a copy of the script. That would allow Gibson to maintain plausible deniability, while getting the desired reaction and the desired publicity. That's how the White House does it.

In that case, calling it "stolen" is just misdirection.

What is your evidence for this? Just about anything is plausible. But Gibson is expending considerable resources in tracking down the theft. And has publically stated that the script the leak was not authorized. And no one on the other side is coming forward and saying, yeah, one of Gibson's guys gave it to us. If that where the case, they could clear this up right away.

And the NCCB may just not be as litigious as you think they could be. There are a number of possible reasons for that other than thinking they didn't have a case.

And the Anti-Defamation League?

And where is the evidence for those confidentiality agreements Vork is so adamant about?

Vorkosigan

August 7, 2003, 10:09 PM

What is your evidence for this? Just about anything is plausible. But Gibson is expending considerable resources in tracking down the theft. And has publically stated that the script the leak was not authorized. And no one on the other side is coming forward and saying, yeah, one of Gibson's guys gave it to us. If that where the case, they could clear this up right away.

Why do you keep ignoring facts? The participants in the review all said it was not stolen. They all said the gave a good-faith review of a document forwarded to them from higher-ups. ICon and Gibson now claim it was stolen, but not do so until after the review was negative. It is a scam, Layman, which they can't clear up because they can't "prove a negative." It is up to Icon to show that (1) the script was stolen and (2) the profs were not acting in good faith. So far we have seen no evidence from you in the form of police reports or filed charges that the document in question was actually stolen. This lack of legal action suggests that in fact Gibson had no case. Let us know what evidence you have from PRIOR to the review that Icon thought the script was stolen.

Vorkosigan

Layman

August 7, 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

Why do you keep ignoring facts? The participants in the review all said it was not stolen.

I'm not ignoring facts. It is a fact that they are generally saying its not stolen. It's does not make it so. Especially since they refuse to identify where they got it from.

They all said the gave a good-faith review of a document forwarded to them from higher-ups. ICon and Gibson now claim it was stolen, but not do so until after the review was negative.

Gibson and Icon responded when they learned about the stolen manuscript. This all happened in only a matter of days.

It is a scam, Layman, which they can't clear up because they can't "prove a negative."

There is no evidence it is a scam. You are making it up. No one is asking them to prove a negative. They are being asked to identify the source of the manuscript.

It is up to Icon to show that (1) the script was stolen and (2) the profs were not acting in good faith. So far we have seen no evidence from you in the form of police reports or filed charges that the document in question was actually stolen. This lack of legal action suggests that in fact Gibson had no case. Let us know what evidence you have from PRIOR to the review that Icon thought the script was stolen.

There has been plenty of legal action Vork. Which is why the offenders have returned the stolen property. Their argeement to do so headed off certain legal action.

Icon was refusing to give them the script well prior to the review. A spokesman for the ad-hoc committee admitted this in an April 22, 2003 article in the L.A. Times and complained that Icon had refused to give them a script to review. Things happened very quickly after that.

Where are those confidentiality agreements Vork?

Where is the evidence that Falco gave the ad-hoc committee the script?

Where has anyone claimed that Gibson or Icon or someone on their behalf provided them with the script? There have been none. And such silence is itself an indictment given their intererst in "clearing" their names.

You made all these allegations. I called you on it. And you bailed. There is no indication whatsoever that anyone from Icon was authorized to release that script.

Toto

August 8, 2003, 12:00 AM

I still say it looks like someone connected to Gibson gave a copy of a script to someone connected to the group of scholars. He probably let the scholars think that he was legit and was going to convey their criticisms to Gibson; but Gibson retained deniability, and is using the whole thing to build up media attention.

In any case, leaking a document like this is not usually described as "stealing." It's not a state secret, it's not really a trade secret, Gibson was not deprived of property, the scholars are not competing with Gibson. When he releases the film, everyone will see or hear the results of the script in any case. The scholars just got advance notice.

Fredriksen does not write like a thief. She writes like a concerned citizen of the world. Instead of addressing her concerns, you are throwing up a smokescreen of inflammatory language, mischaracterizing her as calling for the wrath of God to descend on Gibson. Earlier you sneered, when asked why the scholars did what the did,

To protect the Jews against a surge in anti-semitism, of course. It's apparently their unique moral duty to do so.

Well, no, it is everyone's duty, but some people are dodging their part.

Layman

August 8, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Toto
I still say it looks like someone connected to Gibson gave a copy of a script to someone connected to the group of scholars. He probably let the scholars think that he was legit and was going to convey their criticisms to Gibson; but Gibson retained deniability, and is using the whole thing to build up media attention.

This is horse puckey. If the scholars thought they got the script from a legit source they would have said so. They've dodged the issue, publically at least, at every turn.

The scholars already had a contact person they were dealing with to rely criticisms to Gibson--Falco. And although Volk is accusing Falco of leaking the script he pulled that out of nowhere and can't give a shred of evidence to back it up. And, as late as April 22 (or thereabouts), a representative of the ad hoc committee as complaining to the LA Times that Gibson was refusing to give them a script.

In any case, leaking a document like this is not usually described as "stealing." It's not a state secret, it's not really a trade secret, Gibson was not deprived of property, the scholars are not competing with Gibson. When he releases the film, everyone will see or hear the results of the script in any case. The scholars just got advance notice.

He was deprived of tangible property--the script itself. And it's likely that the terms of employment for all those working on the film was confidentiality. So we could have inducement of brearch and interference with contractual relations as well.

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.

Fredriksen does not write like a thief.

I have not presumed to accuse her of stealing anything. Nor has anyone else.

She writes like a concerned citizen of the world.

Where do I sign up to be a "citizen of the world."

Instead of addressing her concerns, you are throwing up a smokescreen of inflammatory language, mischaracterizing her as calling for the wrath of God to descend on Gibson. Earlier you sneered, when asked why the scholars did what the did,

She did hope for the wrath of God on Gibson. Very far from being "scholarly reserve and restraint." This thread wasn't started to address her concerns. It was regarding censorship and the issue of the stolen manuscript.

Besides, you don't really know what her criticisms are Toto, all you have is her screed about the purported chain of events. The specific points were made in the Report.

Well, no, it is everyone's duty, but some people are dodging their part.

Right, showing that his Messiah was a devout Jew is anti-semitic. Showing that all the apostles were devout Jews is anti-semitic. Gotcha. Gibson has been clear in his public pronouncements that the Jews are not "christ-killers" and there is no racial guilt for anything portrayed in his film.

Toto

August 8, 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Layman
...
He was deprived of tangible property--the script itself. And it's likely that the terms of employment for all those working on the film was confidentiality. So we could have inducement of brearch and interference with contractual relations as well.

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

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.

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

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.

I have not presumed to accuse her of stealing anything. Nor has anyone else.

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

She did hope for the wrath of God on Gibson. Very far from being "scholarly reserve and restraint." This thread wasn't started to address her concerns. It was regarding censorship and the issue of the stolen manuscript.

Besides, you don't really know what her criticisms are Toto, all you have is her screed about the purported chain of events. The specific points were made in the Report.

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.

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.

Right, showing that his Messiah was a devout Jew is anti-semitic. Showing that all the apostles were devout Jews is anti-semitic. Gotcha. Gibson has been clear in his public pronouncements that the Jews are not "christ-killers" and there is no racial guilt for anything portrayed in his film.

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.

We've already had a thread on this film here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59677) where a poster said:

I'm not a bible child or anything. I was raised with no religion.

I saw clips of "The Passion" and I have to say it really pissed me off that religion killed a human being (Jesus). No, it does not inspire me or anything, it convinces me that deist religions are the most dangerous. I had no idea that Jesus was killed in such a barbaric manner and this was all from RELIGION!

I'm just pointing this out as the reaction of someone - and his immediate reaction was to assume that the film was factual and to blame religion, and the only religion involved here was Judaism. What will happen when this film is shown in Eastern Europe?

Layman

August 8, 2003, 11:27 AM

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.

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

Yes, I do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

It will probably make some money.

Amen-Moses

August 8, 2003, 11:39 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

August 8, 2003, 03:06 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 (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/6489830.htm)

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.

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

August 8, 2003, 04:27 PM

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

August 8, 2003, 06:44 PM

But Gibson claims historical accuracy.

Amy-Jill Levine has an article on beliefnet:

The real problem with the Passion (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/130/story_13051_1.html&storyID=13051&boardID=62129)

. . .

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

August 8, 2003, 11:37 PM

Split between Evangelicals and Jews over the film (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/04/1059849338248.html)

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 (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2039058)

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.

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

August 9, 2003, 03:44 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

August 9, 2003, 12:19 PM

In spite of rejecting charges of anti-Semitism, Gibson is starting the rewrite (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-passion9aug09,1,1429143.story?coll=la-home-leftrail)

. . .

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

August 9, 2003, 06:26 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

August 14, 2003, 10:37 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:

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/cjl/CBA_Seminar/townsend.htm

nic

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

Nic Tamzek

August 14, 2003, 02:33 PM

A not-very-encouraging interview with Mel Gibson's parents:

On our first night together, he nursed a mug of sassafras tea while leading a four-hour tutorial on so-called sedevacantism, which holds that all the popes going back to John XXIII in the 1950's have been illegitimate -- ''anti-popes,'' he called them. As Hutton explained it, the conservative cardinal Giuseppe Siri was probably passed over for pope in 1958 in favor of a more reform-minded candidate. Hutton said Cardinal Siri was duly elected, but was forced to step aside by conspirators inside and outside the church. These shadowy enemies might have threatened ''to atom-bomb the Vatican City,'' he said. In another conversation, he told me that the Second Vatican Council was ''a Masonic plot backed by the Jews.''

The intrigue got only murkier and more menacing from there. The next day after church, over a plate of roast beef at a buffet joint off the highway, conversation turned to the events of Sept. 11. Hutton flatly rejected that Al Qaeda hijackers had anything to do with the attacks. ''Anybody can put out a passenger list,'' he said.

So what happened? ''They were crashed by remote control,'' he replied.

He moved on to the Holocaust, dismissing historical accounts that six million Jews were exterminated. ''Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,'' he said. ''It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million?''

Across the table, Joye suddenly looked up from her plate. She was dressed in a stylish outfit for church, wearing a leather patchwork blazer and a felt beret in place of the traditional headdress. She had kept quiet most of the day, so it was a surprise when she cheerfully piped in. ''There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe,'' she said.

''Anyway, there were more after the war than before,'' Hutton added.

The entire catastrophe was manufactured, said Hutton, as part of an arrangement between Hitler and ''financiers'' to move Jews out of Germany. Hitler ''had this deal where he was supposed to make it rough on them so they would all get out and migrate to Israel because they needed people there to fight the Arabs,'' he said.

quoted here:
http://www.yourish.com/archives/2003/mar9-15_2003.html#2003031101

Originally here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/magazine/09GIBSON.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Toto

August 19, 2003, 05:55 PM

Gibson Says He Has 'Softened' Crucifixion Story in New Jesus Movie (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/131/story_13109_1.html)

Director Mel Gibson, under heavy fire from Jewish groups for his $25 million movie on the death of Jesus, has "softened the story" and made changes to make "The Passion" more palatable to critics, according to a spokesman. Scheduled for release next year during Lent, "The Passion" has some Jewish groups nervous it will resurrect old beliefs that Jews were responsible for the death of the Christian savior.

Paul Lauer, marketing director for Gibson's Icon Productions company, said Gibson has edited the film to show more "sympathetic" Jewish characters who were not calling for Jesus to be crucified. "We believe we have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it," Lauer said in an interview. He pointed to Matthew 27:25, in which the Jewish mob calls for Jesus' blood "to be on us and on our children." "That's in the Gospel," he said. "It's not in our film."

JoeWallack

August 26, 2003, 08:52 AM

PASSION Created by ELIZA BETH ANONYMOUSE was introduced in ?AD (even though the "AD" designation is long before the supposed AD event). This fine smell contains jewsmine, beggaming the question, ruse and is accented with tuberrosery, vaniller vicery and mush making PASSION perfect for formal abuse.

JW:
Before we consider whether Mel Gibson and the John Birch tree,
Holocaust and 911 denying father he fell from are just more of a long line of Liars for Jesus, let's look at some of Mel's quotes in order to decide if after 2,000 years we're finally too old for his shit:

http://www.christiancinema.com/cata...sdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=20

"ROME, MARCH 6, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Oscar winning actor-director Mel Gibson is in Rome these days, working on a film on the passion of Christ at the Cinecitt� studios.

(Intermission -
The movie focuses on the last hours of Christ's life and stars
Jim Caviezel ("The Thin Red Line," "Angel Eyes," "The Count of Monte Cristo") as Jesus. Gibson granted the following exclusive interview to ZENIT...

"This film will show the passion of Jesus Christ just the way it
happened. It's like traveling back in time and watching the
events unfold exactly as they occurred."

(Intermissionize - Blood Libel Charges)

Q: How can you be sure that your version is so accurate?

Gibson: "We've done the research. I'm telling the story as
the Bible tells it. I think the story, as it really happened, speaks
for itself. The Gospel is a complete script, and that's what
we're filming."

(Intermissionize - Pograms)

"When you're dealing with non-fiction, a director's
responsibility is to make it as accurate as possible."

(Intermissionize - Inquisition)

But if you hear the words spoken as they were spoken at the time, it can kind of stun you.

(Intermissionize - Holocaust)

JW:
It's a HISTORICAL FACT that "The Passion" has been used by REAL Christians to murder innocent Jews for the last 2,000 years and that if you add up the numbers you'll find that more Jews have died in the last 2,000 years as a result of being murdered by Christians than have died from Natural causes. But is "The Passion" itself a historical fact? That's THE question.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

CJD

August 26, 2003, 12:44 PM

read this somewheres online:

Of all the comments made about Mel Gibson, writer and director of the forthcoming film, "The Passion," I don't recall anyone calling him stupid. Along with all the commotion, Mr. Gibson has generated publicity and public interest worth millions-- and spent very little cash in the process.__In the rush to praise, trash, encourage or denounce a movie that is not even completed, I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out that this kind of response is probably exactly what an experienced producer and promoter of motion pictures, like Mr. Gibson, hoped to ignite.

I have a sneaky suspicion that Mr. Gibson will release exactly the film he always intended.__By stirring up protest prior to completion, then "caving in" and agreeing to changes in the rough cut, he heads off much of the protest and concern, while stoking the public appetite for a film that initially, would probably been of interest to a fairly small audience, by Hollywood standards.__It appears Mr. Gibson is playing a couple of moves ahead of the rest of us.__Can't fault the man for playing the game well.

Now that everyone is paying attention, I hope they are not too disappointed when Mr. Gibson takes his $25 million and produces a film that is in accord with his personal beliefs, opinions, and view of history. . . .

Let's be careful not to associate Mr. Gibson's little endeavor with Christianity over against a capitalistic venture, okay?

Regards,

CJD

Bede

August 27, 2003, 07:15 AM

From someone who has seen the film:

UK Spectator article (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-08-23&id=3427)

I think that Nic and the writer of the above article are right. It's Christianity the critics don't like (as is very clear around here) and anti-Semitism is just a smoke screen.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

RED DAVE

August 27, 2003, 09:59 AM

Having read the article, but, of course, not seen the film, I'll suspend judgment. However, it is my belief that the core myth of xtianity is inherently antisemitic and to release this film at this time is provocative.

The tone of the article reminds me of the defense that Dorothy Sayers used concerning her play "The Man Born to Be King." Xtians just don't get it!

RED DAVE

CJD

August 27, 2003, 03:08 PM

Xtians just don't get it!

What non-Anglo-Saxon Christians like myself don't get, RED, is how insensitively flippant people like you are with accusations of prejudice. It reminds me of Spong speaking at the last Lambeth conference to his opponents in Africa in a rather condescending tone as "more limited in their experience" and susceptible to "superstition." If this jerk actually believed in the gospel message, you can bet he would have been defrocked on the spot, and labeled as a racist for the rest of his days.

The fraudulent piety it takes to cast such aspersions really makes my blood boil. :mad:

CJD

Layman

August 27, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Bede
From someone who has seen the film:

UK Spectator article (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-08-23&id=3427)

I think that Nic and the writer of the above article are right. It's Christianity the critics don't like (as is very clear around here) and anti-Semitism is just a smoke screen.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Very true, Bede. For many secularists and cultural leftists, the charge that Christianity, and especially the Passion Narratives, are inherently anti-semitic is just another weapon with which to bash Christianity.

The heroes of Gibson's film, Jesus and Mary, are Jews. His disciples were Jews. Paul was a Jew. The gospel authors, Luke aside, were Jews. The vast majority of our holy book is the Hebrew Bible.

Vorkosigan

August 28, 2003, 12:55 AM

Very true, Bede. For many secularists and cultural leftists, the charge that Christianity, and especially the Passion Narratives, are inherently anti-semitic is just another weapon with which to bash Christianity.

LOL. The truth of Christian anti-semitism is painful, ain't it? Fact is, Gibson got ambushed by Christians, Layman. This controversy is just another tree in the limitless savannah of Christians savaging Christians.

What non-Anglo-Saxon Christians like myself don't get, RED, is how insensitively flippant people like you are with accusations of prejudice. It reminds me of Spong speaking at the last Lambeth conference to his opponents in Africa in a rather condescending tone as "more limited in their experience" and susceptible to "superstition."

Have you actually been to Africa? Spong's article is an accurate description of the way Christianity has played itself out in Africa. Since rational discussion of this topic is unlikely as you have already implied everyone who has thoughtful responses to the naive, fundamentalist, and authoritarian versions of Christianity promulgated in Africa is some kind of racist, I will make no further comments. Perhaps Jacob Aliet or Celsus would like to add something.

Or we could just go over to AllAfrica.com, and read the many stories...

Gov't requests witch doctors in fight against rebels (http://allafrica.com/stories/200308181063.html)

"A recent meeting between a Government minister and witchdoctors to discuss the use of magical powers to dispel the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group, underlines growing concern that the Government is desperate to fight the insurgents, whose menace has spread eastwards, from their northern territory.

Defence Minister, Ruth Nankabirwa, met the Uganda Traditional Healers Association, led by their chairman, Ben Gulu, and asked for help over the LRA matter.

"Since Kony uses spirits, it is appropriate that witchdoctors cast their spell and defeat Kony," Nankabirwa is reported to have said."

No doubt this African reporter Crespo Sebunya is a flaming anti-African racist.....

Come to think of it, it does sound a lot like the Pope's recent call for rain....

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

August 28, 2003, 12:58 AM

I think that Nic and the writer of the above article are right. It's Christianity the critics don't like (as is very clear around here) and anti-Semitism is just a smoke screen.

Quite a lot of us around here detest Christianity. What of it? Anti-semitism is one reason why we detest it. Bloody movies that present love as an orgy of self-obliterating death-worship is another one. We can't help it if you want to defend this nihilistic garbage, but you shouldn't complain when people punch holes in your superstition. Nobody held a gun to your head and said "Worship the tribal god of ancient nomadic herding peoples!"

Vorkosigan

Layman

August 28, 2003, 12:59 AM

LOL. The truth of Christian anti-semitism is painful, ain't it? Fact is, Gibson got ambushed by Christians, Layman. This controversy is just another tree in the limitless savannah of Christians savaging Christians.

Yes, it is painful. And I did not deny that there has been awful and prevelant anti-semitism in Christianity.

And the leading critic of Gibson has been the Anti-Defamation League. Hardly making this an inter-nicene conflict.

Vorkosigan

August 28, 2003, 01:04 AM

BTW, the author of that film review that Bede cites above is Deal W. Hudson, who happens to be the editor of the conservative Catholic schlock rag Crisis, and, among other things, a smooth talking neocon scum (http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=50&art_id=19991), believing himself to be the wave of the future, when in reality he's just sewage flowing downhill. You will note that in typical disingenuous Christian apologist fashion, he does not note that he is an interested party in the text of his literate spew.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

August 28, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Layman
LOL. The truth of Christian anti-semitism is painful, ain't it? Fact is, Gibson got ambushed by Christians, Layman. This controversy is just another tree in the limitless savannah of Christians savaging Christians.

Yes, it is painful. And I did not deny that there has been awful and prevelant anti-semitism in Christianity.

And the leading critic of Gibson has been the Anti-Defamation League. Hardly making this an inter-nicene conflict.

The ADL has been one part. The other part has been.....several Catholic scholars. But it doesn't really matter. The whole thing is a publicity stunt cooked up by Gibson's lawyers, who clearly couple unlimited imagination with zero scruples.

Vorkosigan

Layman

August 28, 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
The whole thing is a publicity stunt cooked up by Gibson's lawyers, who clearly couple unlimited imagination with zero scruples.

Vorkosigan

I actually know that to be a grossly inaccurate statement.

RED DAVE

August 28, 2003, 07:54 AM

From CJD:

What non-Anglo-Saxon Christians like myself don't get, RED, is how insensitively flippant people like you are with accusations of prejudice.

What the race of a follower of xtianity has to do with this situation is beyond me. My point is, simply, that plain and simple, unreflecting xtianity is inherently antisemitic as proved by its history.

Xtians just take for granted that the rest of the universe is going to perceive their faith through their eyes. As a nonbelieving Jew, who received a middling Jewish education, I have an entirely different take on your religion. From the point of view of my people, you perverted our religion, killed us, kicked us out of one country after another and then, just when things were starting to get good, you killed about 1/3 - 1/2 of us living on earth.

To present the gospel, uncritically, especially with that slightly snotty attitude that appears in the right-wing Spectator article, is inexcusable.

RED DAVE

Vorkosigan

August 28, 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Layman
I actually know that to be a grossly inaccurate statement.

True. Their imagination is probably rather limited.

Vorkosigan

CJD

August 28, 2003, 09:04 AM

Vorkosigan wrote:
Have you actually been to Africa? Spong's article is an accurate description of the way Christianity has played itself out in Africa. Since rational discussion of this topic is unlikely as you have already implied everyone who has thoughtful responses to the naive, fundamentalist, and authoritarian versions of Christianity promulgated in Africa is some kind of racist, I will make no further comments. Perhaps Jacob Aliet or Celsus would like to add something.

I have not been to Africa, but have spent time with a few bishops from there who do not meet Spong's substandard descriptions. I have also been to enough third-world countries to see the latent syncretism therein.The point about Spong is exactly what you assumed about his response: "thoughtful." Puh-lease. His version of religion is little better than "naive, fundamentalist, and authoritarian versions." His views are not the balanced opposite of the Africans in question. IF a thoughtful response were given to many of Africa's religious leaders, then far be it from me to label them a racist. Spong is not prejudice regarding their ethnicity; he is prejudice regarding their faith.

I am far more willing to encourage the authoritarian fundy to move beyond that stuff when he or she loves the gospel, than Spong, who convulses when he hears words like "resurrection."

RED DAVE wrote:
What the race of a follower of xtianity has to do with this situation is beyond me. My point is, simply, that plain and simple, unreflecting xtianity is inherently antisemitic as proved by its history.

The point is simple, really. The ethnicity of a person exercises great influence over the person. Many of her views are shaped as a result of the specific culture in which she is reared. This is all elementary. In my upbringing, we don't carry anti-semitic baggage. Thus, your attack is more a result of your own prejudice, as opposed to taking who I am into account. But I would never argue that ideas can be disassociated from certain consequences. And this is the criterion upon which I base my disdain for your comments. There is no doubt the history of Christianity is shameful (heinous, despicable) at times, especially with regard to their treatment of certain ethnic groups. It seems to me, though, that people are largely to blame for anti-semitism�not the doctrines of historic, orthodox Xianity.

To use your own words: "Unreflecting [non-Christianity] is inherently [nihilistic] as proved by its history." Sure, you can point to horrific events in our past, but from my perspective, if it's Christianity and the world, then the world has a few more heinous events to account for.

. . . you killed about 1/3 - 1/2 of us living on earth.

You can piss off for that. Do you know any Christians today who would defend such wanton destruction? Were all Christians in the Church's checkered past defenders of the Crusades? What you should realize, RED, is that this flippancy with which life is treated is a distinctly HUMAN problem�not a Christian one.

To present the gospel, uncritically, especially with that slightly snotty attitude that appears in the right-wing Spectator article, is inexcusable.

Well, of course! But the same goes for any-wing. Besides, the gospel shouldn't even be "presented." It should be lived-out, which is itself a presentation. If you think this necessarily results in anti-semitism, then you are willfully closing your eyes to reality: Christian mercy ministries alone (for example)�whatever their affiliation�are too numerous to count for fun.

Now, which one of us suffers more from prejudicial preconceptions?

CJD

JoeWallack

August 28, 2003, 09:30 AM

JW:
The anonymous "John" is generally regarded as the most detailed account of Jesus' "Passion". Here it is in its entirety:

John 18: (KJV)

"3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.
18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
22 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?
23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

19 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Gibson's basic problem is how does he present the "Passion" "just the way it happened", "like traveling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred.",
"telling the story as the Bible tells it", "as it really happened, speaks for itself", "The Gospel is a complete script, and that's what we're filming.", "When you're dealing with non-fiction, a director's responsibility is to make it as accurate as possible."
and "you hear the words spoken as they were spoken at the time," as a three hour movie when he has the equivalent of one modern page of supporting narrative to work with?

Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true." - George Constanza

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/