correct. But I doubt anyone here knows the full cultural significance of
that term _at the time_. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that
it's hard to know because there are socially contextual weights that we
can't account for any more.
I think a person could spend a decade pouring over the original greek, the
cultural history, and whatever and there can still be valid counter
arguments to their findings. That's what historians, sociologists, etc do.
It's not so much "revisionist" history as that there is a constant ebb and
flow of knowledge and perspective.
Whenever someone says "this is the truth" I always get a twitch because
there's always something more to learn about it. I know that I've been
guilty of it and it usually comes back to bite me. And when someone says
that a movie is "biblically accurate" I don't even know how to deal with
that.
I hope I wasn't suggesting that you were anti-semitic. I think we're just
having an abstract discussion.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> In the very brief sections of verse that I showed it is possible that they
were not referring to Jewish Priests. However, the ambiguity disappears in
the following verses:
>
> Mark 14:
>
> 55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence
against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find
any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not
agree.
>
> This was after they had captured Jesus and right before they put him on
the cross. The Sanhedrin are "The supreme council and court of justice
among the Jews" - from the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia
>
> Let me just state for that record that I am not anti-semitic nor am I
holding any living person responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.
>
> - Matthew Small
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Graeme
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
>
> Sorry, I should have made clear that I don't know whether that bit in
the
> bible is a victim of translation, revisionist history, or if it's
correctly
> translated and Vatican II is engaging in revisionism. I was asking the
> question before because I don't know but I know it's within the realms
of
> possibilty based on things I know about translation and the study of
> religions.
>
> <cf_speculation>
> It is possible for entire sections to be, if not mistranslated per se,
> misinterpreted. Many of the concepts are presented in such a way that
they
> are rife with cultural interpretation. When referring to the "chief
> priests", what does that mean? Are they actually jewish priests? Are
they
> roman priests, but maybe that was lost in understanding? Are they jewish
> slaves who the romans used as their figureheads to control the jewish
> population and they are given the title of "chief priests" by the
romans?
>
> Take the latter. One reference to a roman installed "chief priest" here
or
> there and a translator's approach to later sections will be skewed based
on
> that misunderstanding.
> </cf_speculation>
>
> <cf_sociology>
> It's also interesting to look at the cultural background of the
political
> necessity of a christ figure. At the time, the Caesar was god. Perhaps
> self-appointed, but culturally that was his position. There were also
many,
> many jewish tribes/sects/groups what have you. There was particularly a
> differentiation of city and country jewish communities. The jewish
people as
> a whole were trying to come up with a way to get out from under the
romans.
> They needed an alternative to the Caesar. But they were also fighting
> amongst themselves for power, just as people in the city today have
> different social needs than people in the country. I've read accounts of
> many viable christ figures that came out of the jewish communities, but
the
> personage of Jesus as a diametrical opposite to the rich, wealthy,
powerful
> and ruthless Caesar was the one that history remembers and was
eventually
> documented in the bible. Documented of course by the ones who put him in
> power.
> </cf_sociology>
>
> I'm just stringing together things I've read years ago and suppositions
> based on that. They provide a viable enough context for me to see the
> Vatacan II pronouncement as credible as any of the religious history.
But
> I'm not a believer. If anything these days, I'm an armchair scholar.
>
> So my only question is, if intellectually there's enough reason to cast
> doubt on the story, why stick steadfastly to a story that justifies some
> people's hatred of some other people?
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
> > OK, that's a single word, but are there entire sections of text which
are
> mistranslated so that it appears that Jews are responsible for the death
of
> Jesus rather than some other group - the Romans, perhaps? Like Brob,
I'd
> always thought it was the Romans alone who put Jesus to death, but then
I
> started reading the Bible.
> >
> > Matthew 26:14-16
> > 14Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the
chief
> priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over
to
> you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on
Judas
> watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
> >
> > John 18:12-13
> > 12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish
> officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to
Annas,
> who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.
> >
> > I'm not holding anybody today responsible for the death of Jesus, but
the
> Bible does say what it says. Are you saying that these passages are
> incorrect?
> >
> > -Matthew Small
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Dinowitz
> > To: CF-Community
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> >
> >
> > Sorry, the actual word is Michashefa, which is the feminine form
used in
> the
> > particular place. Its from the root Kishuf.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> >
> > > I can document it with a single word. Michushef. This Hebrew word
has
> a
> > > meaning of sorceress or witch. i.e. one who uses impure forces to
> affect
> > > reality. A type of magic basically. Because of the way Greek is,
the
> word
> > > they used was basically one who uses herbs or poisons which was
> translated
> > > later on as poisoner and on and on. King James has it as witch,
which
> > pisses
> > > off the modern pagans.
> > > What the word is and what it has become and is becoming over time
and
> due
> > to
> > > 'popular' input shows exactly how the Christian Bible has changed.
> Yes,
> > the
> > > original Greek is the original Greek, but who here reads that? We
all
> read
> > > the English.
> > > A change in a word can be a change in the entire story. Take my
> comment
> > > about the last supper not being able to be the Passover Seder.
That
> was
> > > probably added later in a translation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
