Posted on 12/06/2004 6:28:52 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
The Hanukkah story could be the script for Mel Gibson's next biblical epic. Will it cause the religious tensions 'Passion' did?
Anyone who took offense at Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ", with its depiction of Jewish leaders condemning Jesus, should get ready soon to be offended all over again. Gibson, it is reported, has his heart set on doing a movie version of the story commemorated by Hanukkah. His text will be the novel "My Glorious Brothers" by Howard Fast. Ironically, this book is a sentimental favorite with the older-generation Jewish audience that also tends to be the main financial supporter of Gibson’s primary antagonist, the Anti-Defamation League, which led the drive to condemn "The Passion" as anti-Semitic. The Fast novel tells the story of Jewish heroes, circa 167 B.C.E., who defeat Greek oppressors of the Jewish people, retake the Jerusalem Temple, and relight the great menorah.
So what’s so offensive? If this sounds, on the contrary, like a mollifying gesture to ADL national director Abraham Foxman, you might want to look a little more closely at what Hanukkah is actually about.
Many Jews grew up thinking of Hanukkah (which in 2004 falls on December 8-15) as an innocuous children’s festival. Actually the Maccabean revolt was deadly serious business, and it recalls one of the great tensions in our own modern American society: the conflict was between what today one might call religious fundamentalists and the secular elite.
Here’s what happened. Jewish Palestine had fallen into the clutches of the Greek kingdom of the Seleucids, with their tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes, headquartered in Syria. While the Greeks were not anti-Jewish per se, they had little patience with the perceived particularism and parochialism of Judaism. (I say "perceived" because Judaism’s vision, when properly understood, is in fact highly universal.) The Greek vision was one of mutual theological acceptance. They were relativists, in the sense we know today, believing that not only the God of Israel but all the gods should be worshipped at the Jerusalem Temple--and believing that dissenters from their “tolerance” deserved to be suppressed.
Religiously committed Jews, however, were less troubled by the Greek Syrians themselves than by Jewish “Hellenists” in Palestine, and in the holy city itself, who had thrown in their lot with the Greeks. This was a way of social climbing. By embracing Greek culture, with its aggressive relativism, ambitious Jewish elites hoped to improve their own social standing in Greek eyes. They embraced Greek customs that religious Jews found disturbing – exercising naked in the gymnasium, with an emphasis on discus-throwing in the nude, or (far worse) effacing their circumcisions through a surgical operation involving cutting a flap a skin around the penis and letting it hang by weights. In his standard history of the period, "Alexander to Actium," Professor Peter Green calls this “select club of progressive Hellenizers” a “specially favored cosmopolitan class dedicated to social and political self-advancement,” seeking “sociological privilege and status.”
It all starts to sound like a Tom Wolfe novel. The secular elite were so determined to drive their religious fellow countrymen, whom they regarded as socially inferior, from the capital that finally they took the step of outlawing Jewish practice in Jerusalem itself. The Hellenized Jews burned books of the Torah, made circumcision a capital offense, and sacrificed a pig on the Temple altar.
This drove the religiously faithful--the “fundamentalists,” as the Hellenizers would have called them if they had spoken modern American English--to revolt. Pitting Jew against Jew, the resulting civil war was led by the Maccabee brothers, who whupped the forces of “liberal polytheism,” as Green puts it. The conservatives, he continues, “were stronger, and more numerous, and the more passionate in their beliefs: they stood firm in the face of odds, and were prepared to make sacrifices, indeed to die, for what they held most dear.” Shades of the 2004 presidential election? Maybe so. And this conservative victory is what Jews for 2000 years have celebrated at Hanukkah.
The same conflict reflected in the Hanukkah story is still being enacted down to our own time. Though every Jewish festival has its unique relevance to our contemporary lives, Hanukkah’s relevance is especially provocative and especially political.
When the news of Gibson’s interest in Howard Fast’s novel was picked up in the media, Foxman reportedly told Fast’s widow he would “feel more comfortable putting it in the hands of Mr. [Harvey] Weinstein than Mr. Gibson.” The irony is delicious. Weinstein is the Hollywood producer who co-founded Miramax and made X-rated art movies like "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and "Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!" as well as, more recently, "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Kill Bill: Vol. 2." If Harvey Weinstein and motion pictures had been around in 167 B.C.E., Weinstein would have been the guy making “controversial” films about naked discus-throwing.
How secular liberals, Jewish and otherwise, will respond to the new Gibson effort is an interesting question. "The Passion" proved to be an embarrassment for the ADL and others who predicted that the film’s supposed anti-Semitism would expose America’s Jewish community to medieval-style perils. Of course, no such thing came to pass. All that the protests succeeded in doing was to ensure that many, many more people would see Gibson’s film than would have done so had there (without the ADL’s efforts) been no controversy to begin with.
For the folks who made such an aggressive and pointless fuss about "The Passion," there would seem to be two choices. The first is, once again, to raise a ruckus about how Gibson again casts Jews (in this case the secular liberal Hellenizers) as bad guys, and accomplish nothing positive. The other is to let Gibson alone. Personally, not myself being a big fan of the overlong, gratuitously violent "Passion," I would like to see him get back to the kind of spiritual thriller that caught his imagination when he starred in M. Night Shyamalan’s fabulously gripping "Signs."
Letting Gibson alone would maximize the chances of our avoiding a whole string of heavy-handed, biblically-inspired historical dramas with contemporary relevance. Undoubtedly the controversy sparked by the release of "The Passion" pumped up ticket sales, with many viewers feeling, not without reason, that Gibson had been persecuted just like Jesus was. Without the aura of martyrdom around the new film, perhaps it will be recognized for what "The Passion" actually was--a kind of film that doesn’t put Gibson’s considerable gifts to their best use. This, all around, seems the best strategy.
Another item of interest is this: in a video of Westminster Abbey, there is a scene of a rehearsal for the annual Battle of Britain thanksgiving service, and a young RAF man is shown practicing reading one of the lessons, from 1 Macc. 3,15-19 (KJV) as follows:
"So he made him ready to go up, and there went with him a mighty host of the ungodly to help him, and to be avenged of the children of Israel. And when he came near to the going up of Bethhoron, Judas went forth to meet him with a small company Who, when they saw the host coming to meet them, said unto Judas, How shall we be able, being so few, to fight against so great a multitude and so strong, seeing we are ready to faint with fasting all this day? Unto whom Judas answered, It is no hard matter for many to be shut up in the hands of a few; and with the God of heaven it is all one, to deliver with a great multitude, or a small company. For the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host; but strength cometh from heaven."
Best wishes for the holiday.
Foxman is a bigot he only cares about the suffix on the director's name.
You are close.
"Greater Religious Responsibility": In 1989 and 1990, homosexuals waged a continuing war of vandalism and outright destruction against Catholic churches in Los Angeles. Homosexual attackers calling themselves "Greater Religious Responsibility" claimed responsibility for vicious attacks against Cardinal Roger Mahony, calling him a "murderer" for opposing their "safe sex" programs and for labeling the use of condoms "immoral." They attacked the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption in Los Angeles, desecrating it with bloody-red hand prints and pornographic photographs of perverted sex acts plastered on the windows. ACT-UP posters were pasted everywhere. At St. Catherine's, they nailed a ten-foot cross festooned with plastic penises and used condoms to the church door. They smeared the chancery with animal blood and entrails that appeared to be the products of Satanic sacrifices.
At the time of the Hasmonians the country was called Judea or Israel. Today it is Israel. Anything else is revisionist.
http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Divine_Inspiration_Part_Two.asp
Prophecy is very difficult to attain when the Ark of the Covenant is not in its place in the Holy Temple. Therefore, when the Temple was destroyed and the Ark permanently concealed, prophecy became very difficult.
Moreover, prophecy can only exist in the Holy Land when it is inhabited by the majority of Israelites in the world.
Therefore, when the majority of Israelites refused to return to the Holy Land in the time of Ezra, the land ceased to have its special status with respect to prophecy, and prophecy ceased to exist.
However, it will be restored in the Messianic age, when the majority of Israelites once again live in the Holy Land.
- Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
Copernicanism was the theory that the sun was the center of the universe and the earth and everything else revolves around it. Science as long since discarded this theory in favor of "acentrism," the theory that there is no center to the universe. Instead, the sun is the center of the solar system with its own system of planets (including earth) revolving around it.
The theory that earth is stationary and the center of the universe is called "geocentrism" or sometimes "the Ptolemaic system" after the astronomer Ptolemy of Egypt.
Galileo was persecuted for supporting Copernicanism.
I have no idea how "Palestine," the name given it by the Romans (after the Philistines) has come to be considered the proper name of the land itself as opposed to "Israel" being only the Jewish People or the Jewish State. But it is indeed most unfortunate.
The name of the Land prior to the Conquest was 'Eretz Kena`an, but no one calls it that any more.
Ironically, in the old PBS Chanukkah special (hosted by ultra-lefty Ed Asner!) he called the country Israel, which I always thought was a refreshing change of pace. But now Ed seems to have turned against Israel with a passion.
My apologies that you were offended. I don't know why Mr. Klinghoffer used the term "Palestine." Jewish writers should be specially on guard not to reinforce falsehoods created by their enemies.
Thank you for pointing out the mistake.
ROTFLMAO!
A history of the use of the term 'Palestine' can be found at
http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/speak/nopal.htm
My guess is that the early Zionist leadership was more comfortable with a non-Jewish term to minimize religious associations. Until as late as the 1960s, 'Palestinian' meant 'Jew'.
Exactly.
In an e-mail to a friend yesterday, I wrote:
I disagree with one portion of the ... statement. It reads, "Historically, Chanukah recalls the battle for religious independence that would permit all groups to freely practice their separate traditions without compromise or coercion". This is a nod towards political correctness. The Maccabees weren't fighting for the rights of Greeks to worship pagan idols. They were specifically fighting for their independence and freedom of worship, not for some generalized "all groups to freely practice their separate traditions". Unlike the religiously liberal Hellenized Jews who welcomed Greek influence and culture, the Maccabees were what in modern parlance would be termed "fundamentalists". Or "traditionalists", to use a more neutral term.
Actually, the claim doesn't even appear in Paul's own letters. The quote is attributed to him by the author of Acts.
We can see the Leftists trying to defile everything held holy, just as Antiochus defiled the temple in Jerusalem in those days. Our religious freedoms being eroded in the name of so called multiculturalism and sensitivity. Their efforts to brainwash our children from everything that is good and right.
The Maccabees fought for their freedom to worship and live as God had commanded. To protect their temple from corruption and being turned into something opposite to its purpose.
>>If by "Hellenized" you mean "not worshipping the God of
>>Israel" then perhaps you are mistaken.
>As a publican (a tribute enforcer for the Romans), Matthew
>would have had to swear a pagan oath to Caesar and he would
>have been banned from the Temple and from synagogues.
I didn't know that. But when Matthew heard that Jesus was performing miracles, and speaking as God would, when finally face-to-face with Jesus, and asked to follow, he did.
>>it takes someone at least somewhat familiar with the
>>Jewish scriptures to figure out that it is the real
>>McCohen standing before you, and not some imposter.
>Matthew may have been born and raised a Jew, so he knew
>something about Judaism, but he was an apostate.
True. But again, life changes when you stand face-to-face with the Son of God.
>>Funny thing about the Gospel of Matthew, is that some of
>>the early church mentioned it as the gospel written in the
>>tongue of the Jews.
>The Gospel of Matthew was largely copied from the Gospel of
>Mark and the Gospel of Mark was written by someone who knew
>very little about Judaism, possibly by a gentile. So, if
>Matthew was once written in Aramaic, it must have been a
>translation from Greek.
Reading what I wrote before for a 2nd time, "Funny thing about..." now sounds more caustic than it should have. I apologize if you felt this.
Three of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are largely similar. John is very unique compared to the other three.
1) had they all been the same, a critic could complain that they were all the same
2) had they all been different, a critic could complain that they were all different
...so with 3 the same, and one different, all complaints with respect to similarity or difference are nullified.
Bottom line on the Old and New Testaments, is that they say what happened thousands of years before they happened. Please see http://www.yfiles.com/y3nf.html for more details.
Have a great day.
One sad thing here is that so many traditionalist Roman Catholics (with whom I sympathize despite the vast gulf between our beliefs) see the Jews as the "hidden hand" behind everything bad that has happened in the past two millenia, including Copernicanism, Masonry, and the aforementioned German Protestant Biblical criticism.
As a traditional Catholic myself, I understand, especially after reading this, " Jews against Zionism: The Hidden Protest Massive Media Cover-up! "
http://www.realnews247.com/spec_rpt_jew_against_zionism.htm
that there is alot more going on then most people realize.
Why were the first Christians hiding in the upper room, when Rome clearly had no quarrel with them? How many Jews died facing the lions? Believe it or not, a long time ago, there were more Jews than Christians, and the persecution went the other way...
Christians were greatly persecuted after Christ's death and still so today. Let's not forget the many Jews who followed Christ and became Christians too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.