MEL GIBSON'S DEEPLY CYNICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT:(Libel Alert!)

TNR ^ | 26FEB04 | Greg Esterbrook

[.cnI redruM]

A couple of points.

1) Pilate held his commission from Rome. He was in charge at the time. The buck stops at his desk, and he can wash his hands all he wants. So could Lady Macbeth. Blaming the crucifixtion on the Jews is ignorance.

2) Easterbrook ascribes motives to the movie that I very seriously doubt were intended. I think he espouses a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[JennysCool]

The Libs are just OBSESSED with this movie, trying every angle to hit it This whole atmosphere is a lot like the 2000 election. They see the almost total failure of their value system, and rail against it.

[prion]

Moviegoers will be given the impression that in seeing Jesus horrifically beaten, they are finally beholding the awful, historical truth. They're not--they are beholding a moviemaker's guess.

Gee, I wonder if he was equally troubled by that made-for-TV hit-piece on The Reagans? Or, say, any movie by Oliver Stone? Or is it just a certain sort of movie viewer he thinks is incapable of sorting truth from film?

[roylene]

Looking at the historical context plus Biblical accounts Jesus was flogged or scrogged with a cat-of-nine-tails: a whip with nine pieces of leather that had bits of stone and pottery attached, the purpose was to rip the flesh off the bone. A death sentence was 40 lashes, Jesus was given 39. The Divine plan was for Him to be crucified. The beating leading to the crucification was brutal and horrific but He went willing for us. He went willingly - most powerful!

[.cnI redruM]

I don't understand it. I've known perfectly decent, people, who have a much better church attendance record than I'll lay claim to. I simply fail to see why there is so much vitriol there.

[Prolifeconservative]

Jesus did not choose to die an easy death. God may have well ordained it that Jesus died from a poisoned drink. He didn't, therefore, if God chose Christ to suffer an excrutiating death for our multitude of sins, He wouldn't have pulled up short.

It is my belief that Christ did indeed suffer as depicted in this movie. Ultimately, it comes down to your Faith and you understanding of God's nature, His mercy and love.

[HitmanLV]

Here's one point:

It's lucky Mel didn't make a movie glorifying degenerates! No telling how much heat he would have on him then!

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, I'm sure Stone's depiction of US soldiers bringing German Shepherds and Nazi paraphernalia into battle in Vietnam (the end of Platoon) is perfectly acceptable to Mr. Easterbrook. No film maker's guess on that one. No siree, Bob.

[Wright is right!]

"The Libs are just OBSESSED with this movie, trying every angle to hit it."

The local Gannett rag in Nashville splashed a big article across the front page and page 2 about a "panel" of 10 "theologians, religious leaders and community members" it hewed from the liberal forest and discussed the movie. On the panel were three blacks, who all said Jesus should have been portrayed as a black. They all said the cast looked "too European."

Predictably, the Jews on the panel said it was anti-Semitic.

The white Christians on the panel said it was too bloody.

Not one person on the panel said anything positive about the film.

Why am I inclined to believe that the panel's makeup was pre-designed to only include people on whom the paper could reliably count on to bash the movie?

Round up the usual suspects, Louie.

Michael

[bobo1]

This man is a theological idiot, alluding to only the four Gospels. Has he not read Isaiah 53? How about Psalm 22? Is he such an idiot that he did not think that Gibson used the whole Bible? Give this idiot who claims some sort of association with theology a "thumbs down".

Tired of the stupid claiming knowledge they do not possess.

Blessings, bobo

[AFPhys]

I've got a (weird) friend - a historian whose specialty is pre-Renaissance torture - techniques, results, etc. He informed me long before this movie ever was a thought that there are many contemporary texts available which describe the Roman methods of torture and crucifixion.

I've not yet seen the movie, (tomorrow, hopefully) but everything I've heard about it seems consistent with those ancient writings on the subject.

OF COURSE the Bible isn't that graphic about the subject - nor is it graphic about the bloody mess remaining after a stoning or being fed to the lions, etc. It is up to the reader to endeavor to study to comprehend the meaning of the text.

I'm wondering why the "theologians" and "bible scholars" who are being so critical of Gibson's work choose to ignore the other historical works that can cast illumination on the meaning of "flogging" and "scourging". Perhaps they believe believe Jesus got "kid glove" treatment by the Roman thugs? Perhaps they are simply ignorant of important work pertaining to their chosen field? Why?

[TheBigB]

Easterbrook was fired from ESPN.com and took a lot of heat The New Republic for anti-semitic remarks.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004564/posts

[Glenn]

So, where is the libel?

[petro45acp]

Couple of points.

The "scourging" that that is discussed is known to have been accomplished with rawhide or leather whips with bits of meatal or stone worked into them. The Koine Greek word for scourge means "skin alive with a whip." The punching and beating came from soldiers who at the time were known for their strength and ferocity. The reed used was of a type (historically) that split then cut the flesh when used. His face was noted to have been disfigured as to render recognition difficult.

And through all this "...as a lamb before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" A carpenter in an age where all work was done with heavy tools, a powerfully built man could withstand all this. A powerful man who recognized the importance of his mission would surely survive all this. The only way Gibson could mistate the process would be to have Christ whimper, whine or cry out in any way during its conduct.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I expect few suprises.

[.cnI redruM]

Don't expect Mr. Easterbrook to take a 20-second timeout from his bile to examine any historical context. The Romans considered those who they crucified as less than human. If Jesus couldn't stand up in court and proclaim "Romanus sum.", he was a piece of meat, as far the Roman authorities were concerned.

[Rutles4Ever]

But but but -- I thought Esterbrook believed that the "Jews run Hollywood" -- I thought he blamed the Jews for the violence in "Kill Bill".

How can this be?


Hmmmm

[AFPhys]

Good point. I should also have stated in my earlier post #11 that there was a very good reason that Jesus was already dead when the soldiers came to break the legs of those crucified... he was flogged nearly to death.

[.cnI redruM]

Easterbrook accuses Gibson of trivializing the Gospels for politically partisan gain. Reread the last sentence of the article and you'll see why I gave this a libel alert. It's a little garish to drop a bomb like that on someone's good name and call their body of work a cynical accomplishment.

[.cnI redruM]

I've called this man bipolar before....

[Mr. Bird]

Easterbrook learned his lesson in Political Correctness and is now serving his penance. I defended him at the time of his controversy, and yet here he is ascribing motives just as he was unfairly criticized. What a jerk.