The recent antics of Mel Gibson has thrown the debate of anti-semetism right back into the spotlight over the past few weeks. As we all know, it shed some stark light on his "Passion of the Christ", which had already been previously accused of being anti-semitic. Adding to this are those who would use the gospel of John as a rationale for anti-semitic feelings.

So is there any hope in building a bridge between Jews and Christians (not necessarily a religious bridge, but a relational one. A bridge of understanding and tolerance, from both sides). In 2003, one such bridge was constructed (I know that was 3 years ago, what can i say, we don't see much of that kind of thing down here, and I only just saw part of it today).

The Gospel of John (a link) became a motion picture. Based solely on the book of John, the creators literally took the text of the Bible word for word and turned it into a 3-hour epic detailing the life and times of Jesus Christ. Every word was included, nothing left out, nothing added in. Narrated by Christopher Plummer (yes, even the phrases "Jesus told them", "and he replied" and such were left in), and starring Henry Ian Cusick - who many here would know today as the character "Desmond" from the TV-series Lost - expertly plays Jesus in an engaging and decidedly Jewish manner.

Note first that this link is not Christian propaganda, but a website dedicated to Jewish Theatre (homepage link) - as is evidenced by the comments concerning the historical validity of the text. That said, what makes this movie special is:

While reports of Gibson's Passion have deeply alarmed the Jewish community, The Gospel of John has been given a clean bill of health by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. The film's Canadian producer, Garth Drabinsky, is Jewish, as are many of the executives working on the project. Two Jewish scholars sat on its advisory board.

That is quite a feat of inter-faith diplomacy, given that John's gospel - with its emphasis on the role of the religious authorities in Jesus's death - has traditionally been a happy hunting ground for anti-Semites. Moreover, Visual Bible's insistence on the full, uncorrupted text meant that there could be no excision of inconvenient verses.....

.....Anti-Semitic interpretations of the fourth gospel portray it as Jesus versus the Jews. The Gospel of John sees it as a struggle between Jews. It employs the Good News Bible translation of the text, in which the 70-odd references to "the Jews" are rendered as "the Jewish authorities". The film also manages to capture the Jewishness of the New Testament milieu - something missing from Hollywood's versions of the story. In Saville's hands, the marriage feast at Cana is as Jewish as a Brooklyn bar mitzvah; Mary doesn't say "my son, the Messiah", but you can see it in her eyes.

Such touches have earned the film the praise of critics from outside its intended Christian constituency....

...Garth Drabinsky hopes the film will make the beliefs of Jews and Christians more comprehensible to each other. "The Bible can be so dangerous in the hands of people who want to skew its message," he says. "This project puts the Gospel of John in its proper context. It's not an anti-Semitic text, but the product of a Jewish world in transition."

For Christian audiences, the most unsettling aspect of the film is likely to prove the character of Jesus. Catholics and Protestants alike are accustomed to an identikit Christ whose features have been pasted together from the accounts of all four evangelists. By excluding all the synoptic material, The Gospel of John highlights the fact that the Jesus of the fourth gospel is a different person from the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Cusick brilliantly conveys the strange charisma of the Johannine Christ. This smiling rabble-rouser is self-confident and talkative; he knows he is "the way, the truth and the light". But these claims raise a thorny question. If Jesus said those things, how come the authors of the synoptic gospels failed to report them? The scholarly consensus is that the passionate soliloquies of John were put into Christ's mouth by the early Church. It doesn't make them any less powerful.

"I had to revise my own ideas about Jesus when I read the text," says Cusick. "I couldn't play it like Robert Powell, all gentle and soothing. This Jesus can work up a crowd. He tells people: `If you don't follow me you won't go to heaven.' I didn't want to say that, but I had no choice."

And on a personal note, after seeing parts of this movie (haven't watched through it all yet), on the whole it seemed an engaging piece of filmwork, with elegant (even exquisite, I'd say) camera work and nice choice of actors. Cusick plays Jesus to perfection, despite the accent. And John the Baptist definitely has the dreadlock thing going for him (how can anyone scoff at a dreadlocked prophet, really? ).

In conclusion, from whatever side of the fence you stand on, or even if you see a fence at all, this movie may just be the one to build bridges of understanding between us in our mutual differences.

Until next time, my friends

Regards, PA

It's a movie. If we stop expecting fiction to save us from ourselves, we'll put an end to half the worlds drama!

That would be a start!

LOL I have to throw this in the mix since it gets thrown at me quite often:

"Which Version of John?"

KJV? Or one of the other ones?

Yep, that could be a problem...on another tack, did you know that one of the reasons most scholars do not accept 1 or 2 Peter as being written by Peter the Apostle is that he qotes from the Greek OT, something that a supossed ill educated Jewish fisherman would have no access to, especially since it didn't come along until much later!

john has and will but first must learn the truth in the father our god for he lost he's head the last and this time must continue on that path in seeing the truth in the father our god the first the last and forever

This is unlike you, sean. The answer's right in front of you. In part of the link I quoted:

The Good News Bible was translated into modern vernacular for ease of reading by the everyday folks. So it's not as literally accurate as some other versions. I do think the spirit of the story will still come through, which is the intention of the movie, methinks. It is only a movie, and as such I'm not really looking at the semantics of the text, but the spirit of the text. That's why I put this thread in the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board - to avoid such arguments that are commonplace on the other board, and look at the Spirit. If we wanted to argue, all we need do is quote this from the link (it's in my original post also, but to reiterate):

Cusick brilliantly conveys the strange charisma of the Johannine Christ. This smiling rabble-rouser is self-confident and talkative; he knows he is "the way, the truth and the light". But these claims raise a thorny question. If Jesus said those things, how come the authors of the synoptic gospels failed to report them? The scholarly consensus is that the passionate soliloquies of John were put into Christ's mouth by the early Church. It doesn't make them any less powerful.

The website discusses the possible historical in-authenticity of the gospel of John, but concludes with the sentence It doesn't make them any less powerful. And that's what I'm hoping to focus on. It's what the article focused on, and this was from a website dedicated to Jewish Theatre. If the Jews had this glowing praise for the movie, a movie on which the text is often quoted by anti-semites, then maybe - just maybe - there is hope for us, yet.

Regards, PA

oops. Apologies PA, I must have missed that part. I got distracted.

mea culp.


<---- NOT sean....

No worries, JM. And sorry. You sound very similar to sean, sometimes
It's still unlike you also, methinks

OT: Blame it on the fact that my teenage daughter has two beaus who have been in the house every day for a week.

I'm frazzled.

john must first learn the truth of the father in order to build that bridge that connects the two sides to be as one.

*EEHH! (Buzzer sound) *

Eww, I'm sorry sir but that is incorrect. The Greek O.T. was around before Peter was even born, so yes he would have had access to it.

Not to mention my friend, that your assumption of Peter being ill educated has no basis of fact other then your recollection of a slow minded 'fictional' shrimp boat captain named Forest Gump which seems to have led you to believe all fishermen are stupid.

The fact is, Peter had a profitable profession as a fisherman, HE EVEN POSSESSED HIS OWN BOAT, and was in no way poor......so i'm sure he was a rather well educated person. Not to mention he spoke both Hebrew and Greek (showing his education). In modern comparison Peter would be seen as a very intelligent and successful human being.

On another note, weren't Peter 1 and Peter 2 originally written in Greek??? So why, when quoting O.T. Bible verses, would he write them down in Hebrew when he's writing in Greek already.......and, to a world wide Christian people who would probably know how to read Greek rather than Hebrew? (since most of the Apostles' converts were {formerly} gentiles)


QUOTE: (http://www.bible-researcher.com/brenton1.html)

"The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote."

Here's a quote as to when the Greek O.T. was made from a edu site: "The Septuagint (?made under Ptolemy II r. 283-246 BCE)"... I don't know how accurate that year span is, but from the other sites I looked at those years sound about right as far as I can remember.