Apparently, Mel Gibson wants to make a movie about the Maccabees, who gave us the holiday of Hannukah through their Braveheart-style revolt against the Greek Selucid king Antiochus. Gideon's Blog notes the intense irony here, and delivers a great synopsis of the key players in Judea during Jesus' time. He concludes:
"So the irony of Gibson's film project is twofold. He made a film about Jesus' death that, in the mind of many Jews, slandered the Jewish High Priest with the crime of deicide. But ironically, this High Priest was someone opposed by the ancestors of today's Jews, the Pharisees. And now, to "make up" to the Jews, Gibson is proposing to make a film that glorifies the Maccabees. Normally, this would be a topic modern Jews would love, as Zionism has rehabilitated the Maccabees from their traditional rabbinic disparagement, though it's unlikely most Jews will appreciate the gesture coming from Gibson. But ironically, these Maccabees whom Gibson will celebrate are the ancestors of the same Caiphas who is the villain of Gibson's Passion!"
All true. Also true: if he made a Braveheart-type movie about the Maccabees, I'd go see it.
One correction: There IS NO VILLAIN in The Passion. Peace.
The great thing about the Maccabee story is that the villians are really black hearted scoundrels, plus they are Greeks. Unlike the English, the Greeks are not used to be made out to be the enemies of God and Man, so expect big Pan-Hellene protests.
Boy, this Gideon sure didn't get The Passion, did he? Caiaphas was never the villain of the peace, tool of the villain though he may have been.
Speaking as an Animist with great regards for Christianity, a lot of people didn't get The Passion.
It wasn't about blame. It was about sacrifice.
Maccabee? don't they make anti-virus software?
Well, the bad guys were not only Greeks; the High Priest was pro-Hellenist, wasn't he? The whole Hasmonean/Maccabean revolt was anti-Hellene, and so yet again we have a Jewish priest (after the previous priests left town in a hurry) who is a bad bad man, holding the water for Antiochus Epiphanes. Lets hope controversy does not arise.
Ah well. Whats fun is that Antiochus called himself "Epiphanes", as in "god made manifest". Behind his back he was called "Epimanes", or "Madman".
But where the howls, where the accolades if Gibson were to have enough courage to tell of Christ's return, when He was freighted down with a 90-pound iron collar which cut into His collarbones and scarred Him for life; forced into a black hole in the ground, prison for 60 but holding nearly 90 when He had His feet put into stocks, and He was forced to endure months of this hideous torture in a foul, stench-filled Hole...
At the doing of The Clergy.
People hear, 'Jewish priests' and they focus on the Jewish aspect of it, missing the 'priesthood'-elitist aspect, at least in part because we're so far removed from Jesus' time when only kings and priests had power, had access to reading, writing and numerical ciphering... THAT was Jesus' world, and now, when the Glory of God was released from the horrific torture only to be sent into exile and imprisonment for the rest of His life, He tells humankind, "From two ranks amongst mankind have I seized power..." "...I have given power to the people."
THAT is the key, the theme, the frightening part of what Gibson dares not film.
Ahh, Sharpshooter, not to be rude, but Gibson has a different faith from you. So don't expect him to make a movie of that any time soon.
I too would see "The Maccabees", but I'm not going to see the Passion, ever. I haven't seen my theory represented anywhere, and I wondered what you guys thought-- I think the Passion is based on the beliefs of the 14th century Italian schism sect, the pententeagite. The penitentials were transfixed with the suffering of Jesus Christ, even to the point of self-inflicted wounding and scorging. I think Gibson is trying to bestow an apocryphal experience on moviegoers, apparently something that worked for him. I myself, being uninterested in a virtual flogging and scorging, don't think I'll go.
twistarella- I think there is sufficient biblical scholarship over 2000 years to say that the Gospels were written, with the Passion there in the earliest ones, sometime within 50 years of Christ's death. You might have a point about medieval mystical beliefs, especially non conformist Italian ones, putting a new spin on the matter. But the Passion as such greatly predates the Poor Brethren.
I thought it was 100, but I'm no expert. Anyway, I also have no desire to see the Passion. I have no objections to it. Christ threatened the Hebrew power structure of the time, hence his execution. But if he had threatened, say, the Persian power structure or the Chinese power structure, he'd have been just as dead. So I have a hard time seeing the movie (from what I've read and heard anyway) as anti-semitic. I'm just a wuss when it comes to watching gore on a big screen. The Maccabees movie sounds interesting to me. I've heard of the Maccabees, but I don't know much about them.
Sharpshooter, YOU may believe Jesus spoke truly when He promised the Holy One would come (Matt 24:14, Luke 21:24, Matt 24:14) at the time of the fulfillment of all three of Jesus' holy promises, but Christian clergy don't want that to have come true.
Think! Don't you see a parallel between Jesus' fulfillment of prophecies concerning HIS coming, and Jewish-clergy's non-acceptance of His having fulfilled them; and Christian non-acceptance of their own Lord's holy promises and their fulfillment...
Gibson hasn't the faith OR the courage to suggest that Christ, that indwelling Spirit which differentiates Jesus of Nazareth from the other humans of His Day, could have returned with a New Name and followers who wear His new name...
It wouldn't be Christian.