17 thoughts on “”

  1. Historically, from what I have read, one if not the only reason why the magistrate Pilate ordered Jesus to crucifixion was due to the mob of Jews outside the hall who all screamed for his death. Pilate saw that there was not enough evidence for death but had to yield to mob-rule to keep the peace.

  2. i don’t know. i think Mel knew *exactly* what he was doing, most of the time.

    and Christianity isn’t inherently anti-Semitic–well, not necessarily. first, a *huge* chunk of the Gospels, especially the two written by we-used-to-be-Jews-and-all-we-wrote-were-these-lousy-Gospels (Matthew and Mark, if i’m remembering correctly) are based directly on the Old Testament and Jewish prophecy. Mark–if i’m not confusing him and Matt–draws HEAVILY on prophecy, to the point of downright annoyance. i mean seriously, “and then Jesus stopped to look at the crocuses, which harkens back to what Isaiah said: and lo, the Messiah will look at the heralds of spring, and ye.” the boy just does NOT let go.

    but Matt and Mark were the early guys–the Gospels are in chronological(ly written) order, and so Matt and Mark not only had the luck to have been Jews at one point, they also wrote their Gospels when the Jews and the Christians were still getting along–back when Christianity was still Jewish, to a large degree. it’s not till Doctor Luke, Medicine Gentile came along that the Christians started going “hmm. do we *have* to be Jewish?”

    the early answer, incidentally, was yes. but then Paul showed up. and you know people who convert to something–they’re always the worst because they’ve always got something to prove: “i’m not like *them* anymore.” Paul, nee Saul, had the biggest chip on his shoulder coz he’d been a Christian-killer up till God whacked him upside the head hard enough to knock him off his ass and onto his ass. (heh.) Paul’s largely responsible for Christianity becoming its own thing rather than a big happy Jews for Jesus party. he was the one who said “no!1 we *don’t* have to get circumcised!1” (although i’d put money on the fact that it was because he was all growed up and didn’t like the thought of anybody–not even Doctor Luke, Medicine Gentile–coming at his best friends with a knife more than anything else).

    Paul did a whole lot to push the split between Judaism and Christianity, and a whole lot to push the splinter group up onto its own two feet (Mommy, wow!1 i’m a religion now). Paul, never a Jew himself, was responsible for a lot of the Other-ing of Judaism back there in the second century after the big JC. he was also the guy who took the garage band and made it into a stadium tour–in other words, he was responsible for getting the word out as far as he possibly could. which led to the question–aren’t you boys just rehashing the Jewish thing, but with a twist? so in its later early days, Paul went around to everyone and said “no, man, we’re different. those Jewish boys, they’re alright, but we’ve got style, man.”

    well, that and “women belong in the kitchen,” but that wacky Paul, always trying to prove how hardcore he was.

    so i don’t know that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, any more than it’s anti-Roman or anti-Babylonian or anti-Egyptian. at its absolute core it *is* Jewish….just with a twist (the twist being that–oh crap!1–the Messiah actually showed up, whereas Judaism is still waiting on his first appearance). Christianity is what you make of it. Paul made it different from Judaism; over the years it’s been all across the board in terms of its relations with the Jews and Judaism. but i don’t think you can say that in (all of) its origins, Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic. Matt and Mark, in the very least, would have some issues with that (Mark “he must be the Messiah because eating Wheaties was in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah” especially).

    sorry. it’s been a while since i’ve gotten my religion geek on. whew.


  3. Got to agree with Kate in that Christianity is not “at its very core anti-semitic” thought I cant back it up with the logic she uses, mostly because I dont have that kind of religion geek hanging out inside me, but what I can draw is a conversation I had with a (now) former co-worker of mine, a guy who spent the better part of his life training to be a priest before he realized he did not have the calling. In our discussion which took place weeks before this movie showed up, we discussed how Christianity use to be Judaism with twist, that twist being the Christ, it took some time for the apostles to realize that the belief in a Christ meant that they were not Jews anymore, however this did not mean an outright rejection of their Jewishness, as much of the Bible is based in the same text as those used my Jews ( the name of which I cant recall, as I am not jewish and never had to learn this stuff, though my mom did want to send me to hebrew school as a kid, cause she felt I should be exposed to that portion of my heritage).

    I have not seen the movie and therefore cannot comment on the idea that the movie is Pro Roman Elite, but when it comes out on Video (right in time for Xmas I am sure) I will keep those thoughts in the back of my head.

  4. I should have been more careful about how I was defining anti-semitic. I was being a little precocious, but that is something that you can’t do in a critique like this, especially with a word that has a lot of connotations that can’t be ignored, even though it would be useful to do so.

    I suppose a better term for what I’m talking about would be to say that Christianity is “post-semitic”. The process of its being post-semitic could be compared to postmodernity in the way that postmodernity is rooted in a critique of many of modernity’s concerns and tenets, but has developed to the point where it is its own entity.

    The books of the bible that focus on Jesus’ teachings are concentrated around a critique of certain Judaic philosophical, theological and cultural traditions, beliefs and practices. The Christian church in large part is based on these critiques (about the nature of God, the nature of sin, and our relationship with both). This was and is a huge break from Judaic cosmology. While this may not have been “true” in some ill-defined historical context, I’d only say that our knowlege of “history” is retroactively constituted in the present, to serve present needs and interests. There are many points in history when Christians saw themselves as constituted in a conflicting dichotomy with Jews, and those views of Christianity have had just as much a hand in influencing what Christianity means today as any “authentic” Ur-Christianity. How it “really was” isn’t a thing that can be fully understood. How it is and how we think it was is what we have to work with. The spectre of “authenticity” (and its power) is something we always have to deal with, but that we should probably not give in to. All starting points are arbitrary.

    There are many things that Christianity means today, but for most people there is an awareness that at its core, Christianity was a break from certain Judaic teachings, and an institution of a different way of understanding one’s relationship with God, which for many Christians is what the core of a religions should be about.

    Therefore, although I still thing anti-semitic could be an appropriate apellation if it weren’t for the word’s association with hatred and holocaust, I can also not ignore those associations because they have become part of the word’s “meaning”. So I’ll use the term post-semitic, which might better convey the idea I was trying to convey, although it won’t have the same glibness.

    See, but post-semitic still doesn’t work. It may be because I’m agree with a whole lot of the post’s (postmodernism, post-processualism, post-colonialism, post-feminism), but I tend to see the critiques that the posts have of what came before as valid, and I tend to think what came before was problematic. I do not think this is the same situation as Judaism and Christianity.

    Grr. Language. Utterly useless tool for the purposes of conveying meaning.

    But I still think the movie is horrificly anti-semitic.

    1. I’m glad you clarified that, because the Christianity as anti-semetic thing sort of got a raised eyebrow from me.

      Still haven’t managed to see the Passion because I can’t find anyone to go see it with me. Grrrrr. Should I get to see it, I’ll keep an eye out for the Roman stuff. However, I’m becoming very curious as to what sort of sudience it is really reaching. I just keep thinking back to elementary school when we learned that:

      “The Jews killed Our Lord Jesus, because they didn’t want the Christians to have a Messiah. Luckily for us, he was too strong for Satan and the Jews to kill and he came back to spread the Faith and then go back to God.”

  5. Question, for either you as writer who chose the word, or Ancientwisdom as speaker who selected the word, why plebeian?
    My understanding is that plebeian would indicate either than the claim of anti-semitism is common, or that it is vulgar, and I’m not entirely certain that I understand why it would be necessary to point out that an observation was specifically “common”, or what might be vulgar about the observation that the film was, and I think most people are probably implying a silent “active” in front of the, anti-semitic?
    Not trying to be critical, so much as responding to a slight offense I took at the word, and wanting to know what the intent or the motivation in the specification was. Plebeian has some sort of nasty pejorative connotations, I think.

    If it was just a random grab at at word, sorry for the emphasis on it. Don’t bother explaining if this question is just a random hair.


  6. Well, it’s just a fantasyful weekend. 😉

    We’re thinking of catching Stardust before or after Labyrinth on Friday (depending upon when it’s showing!)

      1. Okies! They finally put up showtimes. G and I will be in Indy on Friday for the State Fair, but we intend on finishing up early afternoon.

        The showtimes are:

        Keystone Arts
        Labyrinth 102 minutes
        4:40pm | 7:20pm | 9:40pm
        $6.50 for matinee, $8.50 for night

        AMC Theatres Clearwater Crossing 12
        Stardust 2:08
        3:50pm | 7:00pm | 9:55pm
        $6.50 for matinee, $8.50 for night

        I think that the 4:40 Labyrinth showing would be best for us, followed up by the 7:00 Stardust. We’d get out around 9:30, at which point the lot of us can have a late dinner or we can just part ways…does that sound good?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s