h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From what I've read (and I haven't seen the film so could be wrong) the narrative of the film stays reasonably close to the bible account; the problem is that we have enough competing sources to cast considerable doubt on certain aspects of that.

The simple fact is that only *one* person had the authority to order the crucifixion, and that was Pontius Pilate. Who was indeed a historical figure, Vix, well attested to in the Roman sources. Governor of Judea from 26-36 AD, and by all accounts a nasty peice of work. Definitely not the sort of person who would have had any qualms about crucifying a potential, much less an actual, troublemaker.

Given that Gibson is a member of a fairly fundamentalist Catholic group there is obviously an agenda behind the film, but whether this goes beyond evangelising his own faith is a moot point.

Noggin

O.K. I can't resist temptation any longer, Putting the film itself to one side for the moment, the discussion raises the question of the different portrayals of what some people believe happened.

No one knows what actually happened.

The early Roman church spent 4 centuries making sure that any dissident opinions about what happened never saw the light of day.

The only opinion we have from someone who claims to have genuinely seen it happen is John.

The earliest complete copy of John's version of events we have was written down 200 years after the event. (Earlier fragments agree with it as far as can be told)

John's version however may well have been tampered with by later writers in order to make it 'fit' with the other three versions which it still disagrees with in parts.

Matthew Mark and Luke all had strong connections with Paul, who by his own admission didn't see it happen, rather than James who some claim did, and Peter who may have seen it happen from a distance, while pretending not to know who was being crucified. Accounts from James and Peter were later declared to be apocryphal by the Roman Church i.e., lies.

If you take the plot of all four gospels then although the Romans actually did the dastardly deed, it was to keep the Pharasees and to a lesser extent the Saducees happy.

There has always been some doubt about whether the crowd called for the release of Jesus of Nazareth (Or more likely Nazorean{=keeper of the covenant, since there is no map showing Nazareth before the third century CE and no other mention of it before that to my knowledge})or whether they called for the release of Jesus Bar Abbus.

Poor old Pilate was used to Latin and probably Greek, Aramaic was unfamiliar to him, he could have misheard, there was certainly room for confusion. He would also have been somewhat out of sorts having been given the governorship of Judea it wasn't a very prestigious post, somewhat similar to a British government minister being given the Northern Ireland Post

For loyal Israelites Aramaic was as far as I'm aware the day to day language of first Century Judea, many of the contemporary religious and other texts found at Qumran were written in this language, or Hebrew and they were most likely hidden in 68-70 CE during the Zealot uprising things wouldn't have changed much, by that time. There were Hellenised Jews who spoke Greek, Herod Antipas and other nobility such as st Paul for instance, most of the rest might have understood it but wouldn't use it by choice (There was a definitely nationalistic theme in the air which exploded in the Zealot uprising in 66 70 CE. Happily, for the Romans Claudius had sorted out the empires finances by then and there was a well equipped army nearby to ruthlessly suppress it, it took 4 years though.)

There was definite animosity between Greek Jews and Aramaic Jews which may well have been at the root of later divisions in the early Christian Church in Jerusalem, Paul on one side 'preaching against the law' and James on the other 'Zealous for the Law'.

Judea was a major problem for the Romans, everywhere else they had been able to Romanise the local deities making it much easier to keep the peace, Jehovah was a jealous god and Romanising him was not going at all well. First Century Judea was perhaps the only place and time in the empire where the Romans found themselves trying to appease the locals. If all this took were nailing up a local Heretic they would probably done it. As well as this The empires Finances were up the creek with out a paddle, Tiberius was somewhat indulgent by all accounts. And it only got worse a year or two later when Caligula got his hands on the purse strings. The Romans were not in a position to fight a full scale war just yet.

Rerhaps we should remember that life was cheap, I sometimes hear people wondering about what sent this emperor or Pharaoh mad, power of life and death over any one who got in their way most likely.

There is always a scandal when someone makes a film or play about Jesus, e.g. Son of Man, The last temptation of Christ, The greatest story ever told, Jesus of Nazareth. He is too working class, actors are told they are arrogant thinking they can portray Christ; even making any film of the New Testament has been condemned.

I wonder if anyone will ever dare make one, in which he is just a preacher in Palestine and not the son of god after all. The church only really decided he was the son of god in the 2nd century anyway and I for one think a film of this kind would be fascinating to watch.

Sorry it's an essay rather than a posting.

So . . . sex is BAD. Chocolate is BAD. Wine is BAD. Religion is BAD???

Really, none of these things can be bad at all in themselves. They are only things. They are only things that people react and respond to. It is how people deal with things that make them appear either good or bad.

If I gorged myself on chocolate every day and didn't eat anything else then, yes, this would be quite unhealthy. And I would end up not even enjoying chocolate anymore because it would then become something more than just a simple pleasure, it would become something I felt I had no control over but felt I had to have all the time even though I was no longer enjoying it.

So then I could decide that chocolate was EVIL and I was going to spend the rest of my life never tasting chocolate again because of how evil it was.

Or perhaps I had only heard about the evils of chocolate and this scared me enough to never want to try it - ever, ever,ever - lest the evil chocolate take over my entire being and make me lose my entire sense of purpose.

Meanwhile, it *only* chocolate. It has no power within itself, only the power that I give to it.

To live an 'anti-chocolate' life seems a bit sad to me. That this might become one's purpose in life - to never eat chocolate again or never even try it. There is nothing wrong with chocolate, per se. It's just something most people can either choose to enjoy or not. And okay, some people really don't like chocolate all that much. I know I don't. I can't remember the last time I ate chocolate. It's really no big deal to me whether I eat it or not. To each their own.

But I cannot imagine chocolate ever becoming an 'enemy'.

On the other hand, if I was told I could never eat cheese or drink wine again . . . No way no day!

And if I am told that the way I conduct my sexual relationships is somehow 'not right', then I will balk at that in the same way as being told I can no longer eat cheese or drink wine unless it is done 'in a certain manner'.

Am I rambling? It would appear so!

Well, never mind . . .

az

Az are we talking european chocolate or Cadbury style chocolate,
if you are talking about home made chocolate, there are better uses for the leaves.

"Hilarious - not! Would you say the same of Sherlock Holmes, or Ghandi? (BTW - didn't people make all sorts of allegations against him? Is that also okay, or is it only Christians who are fair game for silly snide remarks?)"

Della, sweetheart, I'm making a joke about not merely a particular branch of christianity, but also a particular facet of that particular culture. I am not making a generalised joke against all christians, and certainly against any particular individual.

Anyway, it's an old joke in Ireland. And one which began from anecdotal evidence of its veracity. At least in a few cases. In others, of course, it was a member of the congregation.

Cadbury is chocolate??? I rather don't think so.

az

"I don't believe that this is possible at all, whatever the context or the contract there is always an emotional attachment of some kind (Oh dear I just made a sweeping generalisation, I'll have to think about that, but moving swiftly on)"

I really think you need to read e.g. "The Sexual Life of Catherine M", which rather disproves this sweeping generalisation. Of course, it could all be lies, but the POV is unspported by hundreds of emails on various sexual email groups devoted to recreational sex. Of course, some of these, like you own experiences, end up in emotional attachment of one kind or another, but, unless everyone who posts to these hundreds of groups are all lying, very, very many don't.

"Of course it is, Mono-theism might have helped us understand that there is a unity to the universe, but it doesnt help us understand the diversity of humanity, to learn from that diversity or live at peace with each other."

Polytheism is so much more diverse and peaceful. We just argue about sources.

"Matthew Mark and Luke all had strong connections with Paul"

, not AFAIK. From the Greek, and the way he knew both the Jewish religion and used OT sources, Matthew is a Hebrew Jew. His name is certainly Hebrew and it is obvious from e.g. the Acts of the Apostles, that there is a difference in names within the hebrew Jewish and Hellenistic Jewish communities. I've not previously come across the contention that Matthew had a strong connection with Paul (and I once studied the life and works of Paul).

Luke is undeniably a close friend of Paul's and accompanied him on some of his journeys. There is a part of Acts (which was written by Luke) which uses 'we' rather than 'he'.

OTOH, Mark is accepted as being a close associate and acolyte of Peter's. The gospel is generally accepted as being from Peter's POV.

"For loyal Israelites Aramaic was as far as I'm aware the day to day language of first Century Judea,"

Most Jews of the time would speak (at least to some extent) Latin, Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. The earliest written versions of the gospels are in Koine Greek (Common Greek of the Hellenistic period), as are all the other documents which now form the New Testament. Latin would be spoken to some degree as the language of the oppressor, with those at the top of Judean society i.e. the Sadducees, fairly fluent and literate in the language. Aramaic was the common language of Judea but only appears in parts of Esther and Daniel (in the OT) IIRC, and in a couple of phrases anywhere in the NT. hebrew, of course, would have been spoken in the synagogues as it was the language of the scriptures (the OT), and every Hebrew Jew would either hear it or read/speak it on a regular basis. For some of the Hellenistic Jews, it might possibly have been replaced by the Septuagint, but that was unlikely to be common in Judea.

"other nobility such as st Paul for instance"

Paul wasn't noble. He was born in Tarsus, well away from Judea, and was a tent maker by trade (every Jew had a day job!). However, he was a Roman Citizen. he might have bought that, earned it, or his family might have had connections, but we don't know.

"There was definite animosity between Greek Jews and Aramaic Jews which may well have been at the root of later divisions in the early Christian Church in Jerusalem, Paul on one side 'preaching against the law' and James on the other 'Zealous for the Law'."

Yes, but Paul was not a Hellenistic Jew. Prior to conversion to "The Way", his name was Saul, which was a good old Hebrew name. He got into a fight with Peter (described in Galatians and, to some degree, in Acts) about whether or not the gospel could be carried to non-Jews, but there wasn't much fight about Hellenistic Jews related in the NT. What there is, from memory, is in the early chapters of Acts. The early Hellenistic Jews in the Jerusalem church seem to have been led by Stephen, who was killed off by the Jewish authories early in Acts and Saul was the chap who seemed to have ahand organising the stoning. Now that was probably a strictly illegal killing - the Romans didn't stone people and are unlikely to have agreed to the Jews doing so.

Aaaarrrrgh - Biblical studies. Where's the ? Lots of it...

Noggin

Until I started asking what people thought of this film I had no idea that Mel. G was a member of a fund. cath. grp!

I was just rather more offended by the idea of Jews dressing in concentration camp gear as I've mentioned quite a few times now, and will stop doing that now...*chuckles*

I would still like to think that altho his own faith and perhaps influence of friends and preachers may have affected his portrayal somewhat, other people will be more open to the production of story telling in film making.

Isn't film making another form of art that is impressionistic and flavoured by events surrounding and influenced by personal opinions and those opinions of the ones whom you respect?

After all we are seeing another point of view from a different aspect and it isn't written in stone that we should believe what we see anymore.

ah dunno kinda lost the plot now I think....tiring week ambles off for more

Az,

<<.Really, none of these things can be bad at all in themselves. They are only things. They are only things that people react and respond to. It is how people deal with things that make them appear either good or bad.>>


Innna nutshell

LTP I thought Swiss chocolate was THE proper choc...all others are baked beans by comparison and I don't mean to diss baked beans....ok...the baked bean didn't do anything...err...where was I....yea...swiss - the best, Thortons next in line mebbe....

Hi StrontiumDog and Heathen Sceptic,

Bl**dy brilliant! At last some real historical analysis of the events that mis-shaped our world for two millenia .

What do you think of the fact that the Bible tries to portray Jesus as the poor man against the rich and corrupt authorities? Carpenter my arse! He was the annointed heir of the House of David, the Judaean Royal line. No wonder the Province's Governor had to try him, no-one else had the authority. It should be pointed out that the sentence of death could be authorised by legates, Tribunes, and on campaign by lowly Centurions.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the crowd ask for Barabbas, a zealot leader, to be freed, not Jesus?

A careful forensic examination of the accounts of the crucifixion soon shows that Jesus almost certainly survived it, lending credence to the theories of Dr.Laurence Gardner in my opinion.

In any case now is the time for us to throw off the influence of these middle eastern cults and return to the cool reason of science, truth, and our own native beliefs.

Blessings, and just slightly p*ssed,
Matholwch /|\.

<>>

<>

The first three are bad because they lead to a wish for material pleasure, which does not lead to real happyness (at least I don't think it does).

But is a wish for material pleasure bad *in itself*, and if so why? Sure, taken in excess they can have undesirable consequences, but that's why a degree of self control is usually seen as a virtue, too.

I *don't* have a problem with anyone deciding that abstinence is the right thing for them, and setting other priorities; it's the blanket judgement I find a little strange.

Noggin

"The first three are bad because they lead to a wish for material pleasure, which does not lead to real happyness (at least I don't think it does)."

So define "real happiness"!

The expierencing of pleasure happens in the brain. Not spending money makes me happy! Not drinking alcohol makes me happy! Listening to BBC Radio 4 gives me pleasure. Walking in the woods near my house makes me happy.

All things in exess can be bad even your favourite food! In the UK, food intolerance affects up to 45% of the population. Many people don't even know they've got it, they just feel ill for no apparent reason.
Symtoms fall into three catagories, gastro-intestinal, neurological and dermatological. So if you have irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety or eczema, it could be something you've eaten.

Food intolerance is not as bad as food allergy. Food allergy can kill you! One of my grandson's has nut allergy so we have to be very carefull when he's around. Nut allergy can cause anaphylactic shock, swelling of the lips and throat and skin rashes, vomiting or breathing difficulties.


Alji

"...Matthew is a Hebrew Jew. His name is certainly Hebrew..."

Matthew is the English form of Matthaios, which was a Greek form of the Hebrew name Mattithyahu which meant "gift of YAHWEH".

The first three gospels all come from the same source! See The Synoptic Problem @ http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm

Quote;
"There are four basic documentary approaches that can account for the fact that Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke:

Markan priority hypothesis: Mark was first and copied by both Matthew and Luke.
Matthean priority hypothesis: Matthew was first and was copied by Mark who was copied by Luke.
Lukan priority hypothesis: Luke was first and was copied by Mark who was copied by Matthew.
Griesbach hypothesis: Mark, who was third, combined and conflated Matthew and Luke."


Alji

<>

What about religion? From my point of view religion has the potential to cause a lot more unhappiness than sex, chocolate or wine.

Why can't a wish for material pleasure (do you mean physical pleasure?) lead to real happiness? Meanwhile, it's usually a combination of things that lead to feelings of well-being and happiness. Removing some physical pleasures might suit some people better, but to remove *all* of them and treat all things physical with disdain? That really doesn't sound very happy to me.

az

"What do you think of the fact that the Bible tries to portray Jesus as the poor man against the rich and corrupt authorities? Carpenter my arse!"

Actually, being a carpenter may not be much in our society, being 'trade', in pre-Christian, pre-feudal economies it was a highly prized skill. Remember, in such societies there was no real difference between 'art' and 'craft'. The greatest Greek art was crated by people for whom the Greek word translated as 'craftsmen'. The same word would be applied to armourers, carpenters, blacksmiths, masons etc. Effectively, Jesus was middle class and his family was probably fairly wealthy, in relative terms. His disciples included fishermen (probably the same in the social scale, if they owned their own boats) and a tax collector i.e. a middle ranking civil servant (even if one who ranked about as popular as tax inspectors do in our society ). His association with lepers and prostitutes would probably (judging by any societal standards) have been seen as offensive to the 'lower classes' as the upper, both tending to be conservative by nature.

" He was the annointed heir of the House of David, the Judaean Royal line."

I wouldn't hold this in high regard. I dare say, given the number of David's descendants and their proclivity to multiple marriages (as well as rape, incest and what have you - see below), there were any number of people who could make the same claim.
David himself, on at least one occasion, arranged for the death of one of his senior military men because he wanted the man's wife. When he died, there was an all out war between his sons for the succession. The culture was still Bronze Age in nature and so succession was aligned with the female line, though only men took the throne. So there was a fight over David's last concubine. In any case, some time earlier, one son raped his sister, presumably to try to secure power. It wasn't a terribly functional family, if the usual sort for royalty. The whole sorry story is in 2 Samuel 11 to I Kings 1.

"Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the crowd ask for Barabbas, a zealot leader, to be freed, not Jesus?"

Yes, according to all the gospels. The amount of space given over to the accounts of the passion (one third of Mark, for example) indicates this narrative probably formed the basis for 'Q' (Quellen: the undiscovered written and oral source of the synoptic gospels and probably of parts of John). BTW, 'Barabbas' is an odd name (he has no first name in the NT; IIRC it was later films who dubbed him 'jesus Barabbas') as it means 'son of the father', which is not a name which would be given to anyone. I suppose it might have been a name adopted for political purposes, though I can't think of any other examples of anyone doing that in this period and time. It's one of the discrepancies which has caused doubt about parts of the narrative.

"A careful forensic examination of the accounts of the crucifixion soon shows that Jesus almost certainly survived it, lending credence to the theories of Dr.Laurence Gardner in my opinion."

There are any number of accounts, medical and other, demonstrating that the crucifixion was too rapid for the damage done. It was entirely common for death by crucifixions to take a week, and the normal period was around 3 days, IIRC. For one to take only 3 hours id so inexplicable that all modern commentators on the gospels spend a lot of time trying to explain away how on earth this could happen. 'He was weakened by the scourging and blood loss' is the commonest. Hence, no doubt, Gibson's stress on the brutality of this process (I have now read some film reports). Really? The Persian equivalent of the cross was a metal pole which went up through the victim's body. The victims would remain alive, sitting there, for days, as did those subject to the Roman crucifixion. I suspect there was quite an amount of blood loss associated with the Persian method.