From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 12 Apr 2004 - 19:51:17 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christopher
Watching a television debate about this, I like to offer the following.
No doubt this has been said in one of the earlier posts, than I apolo-
First, crucifixion was the way by which the Romans punished those
who opposed them. Thus there is no doubt who was to blame for
JC his death. But the problem seems to be if the Jews, his own
people accordingly to history, has anything to do with it.
If they didn 't, than his death can be seen as a manner to maintain
the grip the Romans had over the land, to show in its most bloody
way what became of those who were opposed.
No more than a determinant way of showing off its strenght.
If the Jews however had something to do with his death, and the
history shows that after he died the relationship between Romans
and Jews was fragile but livible, than we can conclure that they
handed him over.
The question is of course, why !?
In a modern interpretation of the facts we can say, that if there
was within a group of people, one outstanding bad individual and
moreover if that person would jeopardize a whole community than
you can be sure that he would be turned over to keep the peace.
The often used scape- goat principle comes to mind.
The more often used phrase than a Jew can 't be trusted finds its
origin in that story.
That JC was member of a rebellious bunch who used its own
people's history and tradition to get on top of things is one of
the going interpretations if we read Qumran and the history of
That he used in the same way his history and tradition to get
the Jew united behind one idea, the liberty and to get freed
from Roman occupation, is no lie either. Dull he was certainly
In the film however, Gibson made a mess of things, Holly-
wood style... His movie is for the most part based upon
what Johannes wrote, not merely an interpretation of things
in its own right and thus questionable about its content and
truthfullness. Gibson used richly other elements coming from
Moreover, said one of the participants of the debate, it is a
movie where you can laugh with if you understand and know
your history. The Latin used came only into fashion in the
Middle Ages, to give an example. Another historical blunder
is that Mary is seen troughout the film as an important figure.
Historical that isn 't true, Mary came in sight when again
Johannes wrote about her. Probably, at the time JC died
she sat home, completely unaware of the fact that her love
one died a terrible death.
And the blood and the horror !? Hollywood style no doubt,
but seen from the Roman perspective, would you get the
message across to the whole of a nation to stay back !?
I think they did !
That Gibson his interpretation, and that is what it is, can
be seen as yet another manner to get the persecution of
the Jewish people going is too far from the truth.
It is only in the eyes of the Jews themselves that the alledged
anti- Semetic feelings arise, it is their own history and inter-
pretation of historical facts that handed over the feeling that
yet another film is made to maintain a worn- out picture of
the Jews. To learn and to understand the complex context
of that period of our history, Gibsons movie is not that well
placed. Like I said, it a Hollywood styled adaptation of a
historic theme, well done no doubt, but not so near the truth
as many people think.
Even the spokesman of the Catholic community of my
country, found that the Jews were not portrayed as those
evil devils as history wants us to believe, but just the
opposite....or is that another meme launched....!?
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 12 Apr 2004 - 19:52:39 GMT