| |
|
It would actually be helpful,in terms of placing this in context,if we knew on which Gospel account Gibbo has based his film.
Folks talk about "The Gospels" as if they were one monolithic entity, which they manifestly aren't. The four accounts were written at differing times, for differing audiences, and contradict each other freely in order to pursue their varying agendas.
The most famous example is the "Blessed are they" sermon: in Matthew it's the Sertmon on the Mount, because Matthew, written for a Jewish audience, consciously places Jesus in the Jewish prophetic tradition, and the Old Testament was always big on signs being handed down from mountaintops.
In Luke, which was written for a Greek audience and which places more emphasis on the promise of universal salvation, Jesus gives the same sermon--not on a mountaintop, but "on a level plain." Symbolic, no?
It is the gospel of John that places the blame for the crucifixion most squarely on "the Jews"--mostly because John had some large axes to grind with the Jewish authorities of his day. Some of these were purely theological (John's gospel is far more mystically-minded than the other three), but there's a political element as well: the "scribes and the chief priests and the elders" come in for a good kicking because John sees them as Quislings, collaborating with the Roman occupational forces in order to advance the interests of their own sect (which further marginalized the mystical Jewish sect to which John subscribed).
But what the second Vatican council asserts is that we cannot generalize from John's gospel the collective guilt of all Jews in the death of Christ. Indeed, it is absurd to do so, since John was a Jew himself, albeit one from a different sect from the ruling powersnof his day. It was religion and politics in an unholy marriage.
(Off-topic: The same thing is going on today in Tibet, by the way; the Chinese, realizing they cannot stamp out the indigenous people's Buddhism entirely, is instead promoting the religion to suit their own needs--throwing official support behind sects who do not recognize the authority of the Dalai Lama, such as the worshippers of Dorje Shugden, and also--surprise!--announcing the discovery of reincarnated lamas who support the Chinese. This serves to both legitimize the occupation, by giving it the stamp of divine approval, and make more difficult the Dalai Lama's goal of uniting the Tibetan diaspora, by providing alternatives to his authority. Divide and conquer, kids.)
Important to realize, too, that most of the homophobic / oppressive / hateful stuff of Christian doctrine comes not from Jesus Himself, but from Paul, who was not only a Quisling Roman collaborator (pre-road-to-Damascus), but who never even met Jesus in the flesh, but somehow managed to convince everyone that he understood Him and His message better than those who had.
I take Paul with a huge grain of salt: he came out of a fringe-y Jewish sect (the Essenes), and carried most of their heretical notions with him into his conversion--hatred of the body and the material world chief among them. Basicaally, he was a Jewish heretic who became a Christian heretic who, through good PR, ended up one iof the Father of the Church. Go figure. |
|
|
braveheart V2.0 with a twist.