[Vision2020] Reply to Don Nelson
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Fri, 14 May 2004 13:27:41 -0700
--Boundary_(ID_k5uae3k1Krbi6EsmdpOqXA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings:
Since it will take some time before this appears in the paper, I am posting=
=20
it here for immediate reference.
In recent letters to "The Daily News" Don Nelson, with no expertise=20
except his own bravado, makes some incredible claims about the New=20
Testament. Just because a church father said that Mark got his gospel story=
=20
from Peter does not make it so. And if the author of Matthew was an=20
eyewitness to the events, why did he copy Mark=92s gospel almost word for=20
word over 70 percent of the time?
With regard to the issue of anti-Semitism and Mel Gibson=92s movie,=
=20
why does Matthew add a passage that has been used by Christians through the=
=20
ages to brand the Jews as =93Christ killers=94? This passage is suspect=20
because the operative words=93his blood be upon us [Jews]=94--are lifted=
right=20
out of the Greek translation of 2 Kings 1.16. Matthew does this so=20
frequently and so incautiously that he compromises the meaning of=20
=93fulfilled=94 prophecy, particularly with regard to the Virgin Birth,=
where=20
the Greek translation unfortunately has a fatal error.
Nelson claims that Gibson=92s deviations from the Gospel account are=
=20
=93irrelevant.=94 Scholars have traced most of these extra scenes to the=20
visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), who Gibson says =93supplied=
=20
me with stuff I never would have thought of.=94 Gibson considers her a saint=
=20
and wears one of her relics. In Emmerich=92s visions the high priest=
Caiaphas=20
appears as one who is in league with Satan and the defining feature of the=
=20
Jews are their long noses, and the more bent the nose the more evil the=20
Jew.When Gibson says that he doesn=92t consider Emmerich to be anti-Semitic,=
=20
he is clearly admitting that he doesn=92t have a clue about what hatred of=
=20
Jews is all about.
Michael Medved=92s defense that Gibson=92s movie is not anti-Semitic=
=20
because it portrays Jews such as Jesus and the two Marys favorably also=20
wildly misses the mark. The Gospel accounts were written 40-90 years after=
=20
the events. Christians were being subjected to Roman persecution and their=
=20
fervent hope that many Jews would embrace their religion had been=20
dashed. It makes sense, as many New Testament scholar propose, that there=
=20
was a deliberate attempt to make the Jews responsible for Jesus=92 death=20
rather than the Romans, who obviously carried out the execution on the=20
orders of Pilate, who, contrary the Gospel accounts, was so wicked that=20
even Rome had to recall him from Judea.
It is terribly na=EFve to believe that texts, especially those that=
=20
have evangelical purposes, do not contain manipulation of facts and=20
political motivations. It is also na=EFve to think that acting on literal=
=20
readings of the Bible will not have devastating effects, especially with=20
regard to events in the Middle East.
For more on Gibson=92s film see www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/madmax.htm. For=
=20
general dangers of fundamentalism see=20
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/parallels.htm, and for Hindu fundamentalism in=20
particular see www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/hindfund.htm.
Nick Gier, Moscow
--Boundary_(ID_k5uae3k1Krbi6EsmdpOqXA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
Greetings:<br><br>
Since it will take some time before this appears in the paper, I am
posting it here for immediate reference.<br><br>
In recent letters to "The Daily News"
Don Nelson, with no expertise except his own bravado, makes some
incredible claims about the New Testament. Just because a church father
said that Mark got his gospel story from Peter does not make it so.
And if the author of Matthew was an eyewitness to the events, why did he
copy Mark=92s gospel almost word for word over 70 percent of the=20
time?<br>
With regard to the issue of anti-Semitism
and Mel Gibson=92s movie, why does Matthew add a passage that has been used
by Christians through the ages to brand the Jews as =93Christ
killers=94? This passage is suspect because the operative words=93his
blood be upon us [Jews]=94--are lifted right out of the Greek translation
of 2 Kings 1.16. Matthew does this so frequently and so
incautiously that he compromises the meaning of =93fulfilled=94 prophecy,
particularly with regard to the Virgin Birth, where the Greek translation
unfortunately has a fatal error.<br>
Nelson claims that Gibson=92s deviations
from the Gospel account are =93irrelevant.=94 Scholars have traced most of
these extra scenes to the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824),
who Gibson says =93supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.=94
Gibson considers her a saint and wears one of her relics. In Emmerich=92s
visions the high priest Caiaphas appears as one who is in league with
Satan and the defining feature of the Jews are their long noses, and the
more bent the nose the more evil the Jew.When Gibson says that he doesn=92t
consider Emmerich to be anti-Semitic, he is clearly admitting that he
doesn=92t have a clue about what hatred of Jews is all about.<br>
Michael Medved=92s defense that Gibson=92s
movie is not anti-Semitic because it portrays Jews such as Jesus and the
two Marys favorably also wildly misses the mark. The Gospel
accounts were written 40-90 years after the events. Christians were
being subjected to Roman persecution and their fervent hope that many
Jews would embrace their religion had been dashed. It makes sense,
as many New Testament scholar propose, that there was a deliberate
attempt to make the Jews responsible for Jesus=92 death rather than the
Romans, who obviously carried out the execution on the orders of Pilate,
who, contrary the Gospel accounts, was so wicked that even Rome had to
recall him from Judea.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>It is
terribly na=EFve to believe that texts, especially those that have
evangelical purposes, do not contain manipulation of facts and political
motivations. It is also na=EFve to think that acting on literal
readings of the Bible will not have devastating effects, especially with
regard to events in the Middle East.<br><br>
For more on Gibson=92s film see
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/madmax.htm" eudora=3D"autourl">=
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/madmax.htm</a>.
For general dangers of fundamentalism see
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/parallels.htm" eudora=3D"autour=
l">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/parallels.htm</a>,
and for Hindu fundamentalism in particular see
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/hindfund.htm" eudora=3D"autourl=
">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/hindfund.htm</a>.
<br><br>
<br>
Nick Gier,
Moscow<x-tab> </x-tab><br><br>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_k5uae3k1Krbi6EsmdpOqXA)--