Is this anti-semitism?

(In other words for "Romans" we should substitute "state" and for "Jews" we should substitute, like, "public.")

I was trying to think of a comparison like that. I can't come up with one that works perfectly, mostly because there's a sort of ... range of possibility ... of the Sanhedrin's actual power.

(I'm not denying, by the way, that the Sanhedrin would have supported Jesus's execution, since J-dog going Jericho on the Temple is one of the bits we can be pretty sure actually happened. But likewise, this was a time when many, many Jews, both in and outside of Jerusalem, disagreed with the Sanhedrin. And you have to read the Gospels bearing in mind that they were written during and immediately after a time when Christians were being excluded from Jewish communities and services.)

some do maintain that very position ... but that's another topic.

if memory serves me right, most the really objectionable stuff (from a jewish perspective) re the crucifixion and the jews' alleged liability therefor is from the Book of Matthew. that's where the "his blood is on our heads" line comes from i think (tep?) but it was, of course, pilate who sentenced him and the romans who tortured than executed him. based on the reviews of the film that i've read, the romans don't get off the hook for the torture and actual crucifixion -- but pilate's role is whitewashed.

Yep. I can probably find it, just cause.

"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Matthew 27:23-25

but see THEY WANTED HIM TO DIE SO EVERYONE COULD BE SAVED...weren't the romans or the jews or the hitites or gozer the gozarian or WHOEVER doing them all a favor anyway?!

It's like Pharaoh in the Exodus story -- God hardens some hearts and gets the bad guys to ... well, to be bad guys ... but it doesn't stop them from being bad guys, or excuse them from the repercussions. I'm not crazy with any of the theological explanations for this, and I'm not a theologian anyway.

i've also read that the alleged ceremony where the jews selected who was to be execution and who was to be spared was a fiction created by matthew -- that there was no such ceremony among the jewish people then or ever. i have no idea whether or not this is true.

I think it's one of those things we can't be positive is crap, because there's not enough information, but there's no compelling reason to think it's true, and the choice they're given, if they want to spare Jesus, is Jesus Barabbas -- "Jesus, the son of the father." They're being asked, who do you want to kill, Jesus the Messiah, or Jesus the son of the father?

I knew someone would say this. If the Rabbi had said 'it's a lie that the Jews killed Jesus' then that would be at least be technically correct, but what he said was about responsibility, and the Bible does make it fairly clear that his cruxificion was the Jewish people's choice. Of course 'washing your hands' isn't a morally great position, but that doesn't make any difference to what the Pharisees and the mob's own responsibility. If Matthew made all that up then fine, attack that, not the film.

As I said, the film may well be anti-semitic in its emphases and subtexts, but I just thought this was a particularly dumb way of phrasing an attack.

Though irrelevant, of course, since the film doesn't make this claim.

But the movie isn't a strictly Gospels-and-nothing-but portrayal -- and even the parts that do rely on a Gospel still often must decide which (with Gibson favoring Matthew and John, from what I've seen).

I think it includes a lot of things that can elicit a smug nod from people who hate the Jews already, but that doesn't mean it's nodding along with them; I do think the "let the blood be on our hands" line was a stupid one to include, but it's been removed from the subtitles (although it's still there, for those few Aramaic speakers in the audience who can make out the poor pronunciation.) A number of the changes Gibson has made to the Gospel material seem at first to make the Jews come across worse than they need to, but I think they make the Romans come across worse than they need to, too, so if Gibson's message is that everyone's a fuckbastard except me and my Messiah, I'm not sure I'm willing to charge him with subsets of calling-people-fuckbastards.

well, all it really says is that the pro-Roman high priests were all for it, and that there was a mob shouting "give us Barabbas!" and "crucify Jesus". It's a bit of a leap from that to say that all Jewish people wanted Jesus crucified. It doesn't even follow that all or most Jewish people in Jerusalem wanted him killed.

This is totally reminding me of the scene where the multitude are gathered outside Brian's bedroom window in Life of Brian and all answering (at length) in unison Brian's mother's questions.

(I'm talking in general again here, not about the movie I haven't seen.)

I think the Rabbi is oversimplifying, but I do think there's a lot to credit in the idea that blaming Jews -- the Jews, some Jews, any Jews, if the statement of blame makes a point of their Jewishness -- for Jesus's death, while forgiving the Romans, is tied in with the anti-Semitism that was a necessary prerequisite for the Holocaust.

[*] For instance, if the "let his blood be on our hands" line had some greater pertinence, and removing it would remove some of the good along with the bad -- which I don't think is the case -- then there'd be the question of what to do with it, whether a rephrasing could retain the good while still removing the bad, etc.

But nevertheless, some idiot notions were popularized more than others.

It's something I can't condemn yet sight-unseen, because when I wrote my own Jesus novel, it was something I kept having trouble with -- I'd like to think I'm not the least bit anti-Semitic, but when your protagonist opposes the status quo, and the status quo is Jewish, and his followers are more ardent about the opposition than he is, you do find some sentences need to be rewritten to avoid things that could be taken very wrongly.

(I can't help but suspect Gibson was less concerned about that than I was, but I don't know if that's fair.)

i'm not criticizing you tep

it's one thing to say 'oh i think this part of the gospels is more humane and more useful' but that doesn't mean the other parts are any less *there*--i dunno, there's this awful residual part of me that says that the acceptance of the authority--moral or otherwise--of the gospels is the central problem, and the problems of interpretation and selective application are just auxilliary problems

but you're right that's another topic

(x-post)

so i'll be happy to oblige

I'm not a Jew but I certainly take offense at this statement. What do you mean by 'ruining'? Does it ruin the state more than Christianity ruins other states, like Northern Ireland, for instance?

a) Israel is to blame.
b) No wait, the Jews are to blame.
c) Also, I forgot about those Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

Chow985 (5 days ago) Show Hide
+3 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
enjoy while you can, the jews of nbc are coming

Swaneaterman (5 days ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
i hope you meant jaws

SUP3RSOFA (4 days ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
pretty sure he meant to say jews

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/feb/18/caryl-churchill-gaza-play

w the f is with the tone of this? if the accusation was of straight-up racism... oh you get the idea.

"don't tell them about the dead babies"??

subtle stuff.

w the f is with the tone of this?

Lol Melanie Phillips, I believe.

Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her their names why not, tell her the whole world knows, why shouldn’t she know? tell her there’s dead babies, did she see babies? Tell her she’s got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I’m not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we’re the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can’t talk suffering to us. Tell her we’re the iron fist now, tell her it’s the fog of war, tell her we won’t stop killing them till we’re safe, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policeman, tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don’t care if the world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.

ay-ay-ay

xpost

would have held water before the guardian started publishing stuff by the likes of neil clark, richard seymour, tony naylor, etc.*

*joke that possibly not even dom will get