Tom: Uh ohhh! I've been assuming that my e-mail's being filtered through Norton has been keeping all the worms &c. out. But, since for about a week I've been getting Gotit! notices with nearly every batch of incoming e-mail, I've been wondering. (Seventeen W32Novarg.A and W32MyDoom in the last 4 days, with a few Unknowns). Now I really am concerned. 

Rebecca: W32MyDoom is a nasty little thing... run updates from Norton before opening email. If your preview window on your email is open, close that. Do not open those emails that say "hi" and ".... transmition not complete", etc. Again, do not open, then Delete and Empty your trash should you receive any of those emails. I am concerned, too, because apparently Norton can not repair, delete, nor quarentine all of those emails that contain the virus.

Tom: Thanks. That's pretty much what I do.

Rebecca: Now:...I thought I'd write back a few ramblin' thoughts: Mr. Swank quotes the NY Times:

"A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, 'His blood be on us and on our children,' will not be in the movie's final version, said the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

I am wondering what Gibson's reference for that was? I was under the assumption (no pun intended) that he was using the Bible for his dialogue.... staying true to the text and all of that.

Tom: He is staying true to the text - of the New American Bible - and the Times is quoting accurately. And I used the same NAB translation in POUND OF COFFEE. Putting those words in the mouth of Caiaphas is not only understandable in terms of movie-making (The crowd is roaring something, but what are they saying?); it is also accurate in terms of whom the early Christian held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus: Peter says to the Sanhedrin (Acts 4): "All of you and all the people of Israel should know that [we proclaim the resurrection of the dead, etc.] in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarine whom you crucified [italics added]..." In Acts 7 Stephen appears before the Sanhedrin and responds directly to Caiaphas with a lengthy summary of the story of Israel capped by this: "[Your ancestors] put to death [the prophets] who foretold the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become [italics added]." Matthew's Pilate is a nice guy the Jewish leaders and their hirelings used as a tool to get rid of Jesus. Particularly telling is the transcendant Christ of John's Gospel, who says to some Pharasee straight men, "Do not your own scriptures say..." as if they were not his own scriptures, too! No, the problem is not that Gibson wasn't true to the text, in letter and in spirit. The problem is that there's 2000+ years of dark, roiling water gone under that bridge.

Rebecca: ... well, and we all know what Stephen got from THAT sermon. Still, the translation is a bit of a stretch, don't you think, as is the NAB?

Tom: Matthew 25: 27 - "His blood be on us and on our children." (RSV). "Let his blood be on us and on our children." (Lamsa Translation From the Aramaic of the Peshitta) "His blood be on us and on our children." (KJV)... I am utterly at a loss to understand what you are objecting to.

Rebecca: OK. I am much corrected on the text of blood on children and all of that. Thanks. (RSV & KJV always does it for me.)

Here's another thought: From a Christian viewpoint, the blood of Christ being "on us and our children" means not only culpability but also "forgiveness." In that light, one could argue that removing the line was an anti-Semitic decision/act.

Tom: I know. But imagine you were a Jew reading that... You would sigh and shake your head in dismay, not only at the writer's attempt to dump Christian salvation onto your head, but at the complete refusal to come to terms with what real anti-Semitism, Christian anti-Semitism, has done to your anscestors throughout history.

Forgive me for using your well-meant words as a diving-board into a pet peeve, but here goes: From a Christian viewpoint, one ought not be condescending toward Judiasm or any other religion. Why pretend (and it is pretense) that we're sole possesors of the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, and those of other faiths are at best unenlightened and at worst headed for hell?

Rebecca: Yikes, Tom... a lot of assumptions in that paragraph. How did you go from "forgiveness" to being condescending? Historically speaking: Did Jesus live? Fact: Yes. Did He (a Jew) claim to be the Son of God? Fact: Yes. Did His followers (also Jews) believe that? Fact: Yes. Did He and His followers (all Jews) believe Him to be the Messiah? Fact: Yes. Were there Jews, including one of His followers, who plotted His death? Fact: Yes. Was he arrested by Roman soldiers and taken to trial? Fact: Yes. Were the Jews given an opportunity to release Him? Fact: Yes. Did they? Fact: No. Was He crucified under Roman Law? Fact: Yes. Did He ask God to forgive them?: Fact: Yes.

Tom: Okay, theologically condescending, then.

Rebecca: Tom, I do not understand how "forgiveness" is to be construed as theologically condescending.

Tom: We're talking about Christian forgiveness, being conveyed, via Christian theology to a people who know, if they read Jeff Weiss's DMN article yesterday, that 1 out of 4 "Christians" hold them (yet-still-again-even now) responsible for Jesus death. That's the way many of Christ's followers convey forgiveness in the context of the term anti-Semitism.

Rebecca: Did I say, Christians are the sole possesors of the Truth.... and those of other faiths are at best ... headed for hell?... as if we knew the Mind of God...."

Tom: No, you didn't say that, much less did you intend it. I thought when I said "Forgive me for using your well-meant words as a diving board," I'd be off that hook. No way, huh?

Rebecca: Nope. I will say this: Is Christianity the Truth? Of course it is. Is speaking the Truth condescending? Of course not. Are we often mistaken and seldom wrong in what is and is not true?.... :o) .... but, of course.

Tom: "Often mistaken & frequently wrong"?

Rebecca: "Often mistaken and seldom wrong" is exactly what I meant in my dry wit turn of phrase sort of way... jabbing a bit at us know-it-all-Christian-types. ( I've been instructed to be sure and tell people when I am being humorous and I didn't do that. So solly.)

As for who is going to heaven and hell. I am a staunch believer that it is Jesus who will judge. When I read the scriptures, it seems perfectly clear that we are commanded not to judge who will go to hell, and since He is the judge of all of that, then is this not applicable to the reverse as well? After all, only God knows man's heart. A dear friend of mine, often use to say, "I think we will be surprised who will as well as who will not be in heaven.....should we be granted the mercy to see eternity ourselves."

Tom: But not every Christian has your sophisticated veiwpoint and generosity of spirit. I took a week-end cram course in Hebrew at Temple Emanuel once, and during smoke break a recent Baptist-to-Jew convert said something about being in shock & pain over the recent death of someone close to her. I said, "But think how much joy you will have when you meet her in Heaven." One of the teaching honchos standing nearby mouthed an ardent "Thank you, Tom." Apparently none of her Baptist friends and relatives entertained the posibility that, having converted to Judaism, she might still get to Heaven, and were probably making her already-difficult path pure-dee Hell. Like you & your friend, I don't really know; but I take universal salvation as a Default position - You know, "unless otherwise instructed."

Rebecca: Back to "theological condescension" a moment. I am sure Jews are not devoid of the concept of "forgiveness." (I think I now have a question running about my head about this.... but will save that for another forum.)

Still. Something about this Gibson endeavor (or rather the fruits or lack thereof) bothers me. I am reminded of the 11th(?) 13th(?) century iconoclastic controversy. Perhaps stirring-up some of the more erudite scholarship of that debate, throw-in a bit of Malcolm Muggeridge's warnings about the power of the cinema, and then add a little healthy skepticism or caution toward anything that elicits such strong emotional reaction(s); may be the better formula for approaching this film.

Tom: Speaking of erudite! I read this passage to Fr. Ed, ending with a plea for help. So we rehashed the central issues re. icons - Are they "windows into Heaven" or idols that ought to be destroyed? Is there not inherent danger in attempting to portray the divine? Both confessed ignorance re. Muggeridge on the cinema. Your bottom line, for us, was: It might be good at this point to remind ourselves, "Hey, it's just a movie." Is that about right?

Rebecca: Some of the argument was indeed "windows vs idols," but the danger or caution in attempting to portray the divine is more what I was referring to. The Orthodox iconographers, even today, write with strict guidlines. They are actually considered theologians, and the icons themselves not merely objects for devotion to God, but instructional as well as theology for the illiterate. In other words, one does not just proclaim himself an iconographer, pick up brushes and egg tempera and start disseminating theological truth. Mel Gibson, on the other hand........ picks up camera and film and blitzes his audience with graphic violence. No, I wasn't saying, "hey, it's just a movie," so much as saying that movies are powerful communication tools that disseminate graphic images, thought provoking concepts, and elicit strong emotion. Once we see.... whatever.... it's there, in our minds and in our emotional make-up even if we reject or disagree or are offended by what we experience. Hollywood, for good or for evil, has probably influenced American thinking (not to mention international perceptions of Americans) much more than we realize.

Tom: Also Gibson's "Passion" is a movie none of us has seen, but have heard so awfully much about. This morning's Dallas News front page centers on - speaking of icons - a striking color pic: crown of thorns on one side, film reel on the other, to illustrate Jeffrey Weiss' article, Passion or Prejudice: New movie about Jesus' death stirs anti-Semitism question. I will, of course, read it. Mr. Weiss writes wittily and well.

Rebecca: Then, too - It was interesting hearing on the national news that not only had the Pope seen the movie but had also "blessed" it. Later reports were that he had indeed seen it, perhaps blessed it (in the sense that one would bless a meal), but no comment (neither endorsement nor condemnation) officially issued by the Vatican. Perhaps that has changed, but it would be surprising if there was indeed an official comment issued.

Tom: Oh Lordy, wasn't that just one helluva mess? There were so many contradictory unofficial/official notices re. the Pope's take on that blasted movie coming out of the Vatican that DMN editor Rod Dreher wrote an op-ed piece, trying to decide who was lying.

In any case, Rebecca - Just go back and listen to us, like Benedick and Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing - as Father Ed characterized us one post-Mass morning long ago - a couple who convey how really fond they are of one another via a continuous verbal sparring match.

Rebecca: I will spar with ya any day, Tom, if that is indeed conveying my deep fondness for you.  Thanks for you and the Coffee chat.

...

Post Script

Rebecca:  Sorry, Tom.  I know we've kicked this door a good bit, but I did have a few other thoughts on this Passion business just the other day, and possibly some reasons a person may opt to not go to see the movie.