-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of frank scott Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:13 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: gibsonoia
> how many people actually regard this thing as "controversial"?
** If the vicissitudes of scorn and rapture constitute "controversy" then the film is controversial. Of course it isn't controversial in and of itself, controversy is always "for us" in the reception. Aside from that, I'm a bit worried by your comment about "obsessive Jewish groups." Insofar as the film is representative of the Gospel texts, it is anti-Judaic. There is no question about that, because the Gospels are anti-Judaic. Read 'em. The "New" testament was invariably written from the perspective of people interested in subsuming the relevance and authority of the "Old" testament. Christology is also inherently anti-Judaic. The charge of anti-Semitism should not be viewed of as adhering to the film (my generous interpretation of such claims), but to the history of the interpretation of the texts on which the film is based. There are countless episodes of Christians (and non-Christians) using key anti-Judaic Gospel texts to legitimate and further anti-Semitism. The claim that the film is itself anti-Semitic is ridiculous, however the concern that the film could be used to further anti-Semitism is a VERY real danger and a legitimate critique - because the film consciously and intentionally highlights and makes us of anti-Judaic material. I haven't read much of the material claiming that the film is anti-Semitic, but insofar as the film is passing itself off as (and being hailed as) [I should say, received as] historical it is anti-Semitic. This is where I agree with such criticisms. It is a blatant ideological interpretation of history without any coherent basis, it serves the interests of anti-intellectuals and counter-enlightenment buffs everywhere. Sure, Jesus did exist, so did Pilate. But would Pilate have consulted the crowds? (were there crowds?!?). Of course not, the idea is ridiculous. The people living in Jerusalem were adamantly opposed to Roman rule. No one would have agreed with almost anything the Romans had to say. The entire narrative structure of the Gospels, as derived from the circulation of Q by disenchanted village scribes, is a condemnation and critique of Rome and its representatives, for which there was popular support. The parable about the mustard seed is not about planting faith and making it grow - the mustard seed is a weed, and its growth is a plague. Planting the seed is an allegory for political upheaval. This message was translated as apocalyptic only later. It was likely first understood politically and theologised later when the hopes of revolutionary activity became exhausted. What bothers me most about all this hoopla about Gibson is that NONE of it has sparked any interest or discussion about biblical criticism, history, or anything that thousands of good and hard working historians have written. It's a shame, because the history and historiography of Jesus is interesting. As far as I can tell, no text(s) have been given more critical and thoughtful scrutiny by trained literary historians than the Gospels, and there is some really excellent material out there. Except the stuff on the Dead Sea Scrolls... unfortunately most of that scholarship is idiotic and cryptic. The DSS don't really offer us any new or interesting information about the time period, other than affirming the existence of a separatist community. That ALL of this research would be totally ignored is appalling. Shame on everyone, except those who agree with me, kudos to y'all 'cause you're beautiful and awesome.
ken