Posted by PS on October 08, 2003 at 14:40:00:
In Reply to: Re: Mel Gibson's THE PASSION posted by Bob - the Alien on October 08, 2003 at 12:17:30:
:...or would time be better spent reading the gospels ourselves.
My only comment will be to this statement above. (I am not talking about the movie here.) While I do not disagree with the value in reading the gospels, of course, it again bears mentioning that the writers of the gospels assumed an understanding in their readers that we do not begin to possess. The reading of the gospels will NOT reproduce this understanding. Again, it is assumed but never articulated or explained by the writers.
If you wrote a letter to a friend about the political motivations of Bush in the Iraq conquest, you would not include the account of Bush's life, his campaign for the presidency, the record of his presidency so far, the wide range of public opinion surrounding his performance and ideals. You would not include the account of the Iraq conflict blow-by blow, the multitude of perceptions of the necessity or reprehensibility of this conquest, the history of the Iraqi (Babylonian) people or the past conflicts between our countries, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. You would certainly not seek to portray the whole context of Western political and religious thought that has been developing for centuries, nor it's uniquely American varieties in the present century.
Now someone in the year 4003 CE, without any of this knowledge and having never studied all the relevant histories and sociological and philosophical diversities of our era, cannot really understand much of what you were trying to say, because they lack context. Even the most studied and learned historians of 4003 would be using a great deal of speculation in answering many crucial questions regarding the interpretation of your letter. Furthermore, we have not even begun to talk about the context of the writer--who you were, your life, your understanding--let alone that of your intended reader(s)! How will the 4003 scholar uncover this? Did anyone write a history of you or your reader(s)? If you even were that famous, then how correct and comprehensive were the available records of your life, and how relevant were they in the interpretation of this letter? You get my point by now, I hope...
*** And everyone yells, "Yes! We get it! Stop already!" ;-)
It is crucial to understand how the writers of the gospels expected them to be understood by their readers. It is not quite precise say that this understanding is crucial to "prevent" the blurring of the gospels' meanings, because the blurring is already endemic and prevalent. Our entire view of Jesus' life and teachings and significance is blurred by our lack of context, whether we are willing to accept it or not (with most of the evangelical community being largely unwilling). I propose rather that this contextual understanding is crucial to undo/alleviate to some degree the blurring which we already embrace as our Truth.
Now, as regards the movie...
Inasmuch as this movie furthers this undoing/alleviation, it is worthwhile. (It bears mentioning here that sometimes the pendulum must swing to the opposite extreme to truly be a correcting influence.) But I do agree with you completely that inasmuch as this movie blurs the issue further, it is damaging. I will certainly let you know my opinion after seeing it. :-)