04-13-2004, 12:01 PM
I think the idea is that Nazareth was <em>a very small village</em> at the time of Jesus' birth, and therefore 'Jesus of Nazareth' would mean about as much as 'Jesus of Upper Dogsbottom' to anyone not from the immediate area. This theory is rather confounded by the fact that the gospel writers had such a problem with the birthplace - traditionally, the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, hence the (apparent) invention or chronological alteration of the Census to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in time to fulfil the prophecies. If Jesus was not from Nazareth, why do the gospels insist on such an inconvenient place of origin?<br>
<br>
As for the Nazarenes thing - there were a multitude of small sects in first century Judaism, many of them rather mysterious to us today. The Nazirites were an age-old group of purists - Samson was one - who scrupulously observed the law. The Nazarenes or Nazoreans, meanwhile, are commonly assumed to be a branch of the Essenes, conceivably the warlike group who left the scrolls at Qumran. Quite possibly there's a Jesus connection there. In quest of the first 'Jewish Christians', many writers have fixed their sights on the Ebionites, however, another rather obscure group, maybe connected to the Essenes, who are mentioned at the time. All this does become a bit conspiratorial, however - the whole 'Jesus origins' debate is a playground for cranky theories - my favourite is that the new testament was written by Roman senator Calpurnius Piso...<br>
<br>
Passion of the Christ, hmmm... Living on the edge of the Cornish moors, I hardly qualify for urban sophisticate status, but I found little to love in the film. Certainly it was overwhelming and 'powerful' - so many films are these days - filled with CGI crowds, gore and booming music. Certainly too, Jesus died a horrible death. So did thousands of others, scourged and crucified for rebellion. By focussing so absolutely on the physical torment of Jesus, on the sheer gruelling endurance-test of it all, Gibson creates a reductive and rather perverted version of Christianity, all pain and groaning, absolute good and evil, machismo and masochism. Sure enough, the early church had its death obsessions as well (read Cyprian's 'Exhortations to Martyrdom' for an insight into 3rd century 'fundamentalism'), but in the 21st century, Gibson's view seems designed to browbeat viewers in shamed acceptance of a very reactionary dogma - the 'shock and awe' approach to religious teaching perhaps. Maybe it is just to do with faith, though - I'm not a Christian of any description, and the film just summed up everything I find most disagreeable about Christianity at its most righteous and unlovely. Perhaps I'm just a sneering urban sophisticate after all...<br>
<br>
(icon of empty sneering, a la Alan Rickman...) <p></p><i></i>
<br>
As for the Nazarenes thing - there were a multitude of small sects in first century Judaism, many of them rather mysterious to us today. The Nazirites were an age-old group of purists - Samson was one - who scrupulously observed the law. The Nazarenes or Nazoreans, meanwhile, are commonly assumed to be a branch of the Essenes, conceivably the warlike group who left the scrolls at Qumran. Quite possibly there's a Jesus connection there. In quest of the first 'Jewish Christians', many writers have fixed their sights on the Ebionites, however, another rather obscure group, maybe connected to the Essenes, who are mentioned at the time. All this does become a bit conspiratorial, however - the whole 'Jesus origins' debate is a playground for cranky theories - my favourite is that the new testament was written by Roman senator Calpurnius Piso...<br>
<br>
Passion of the Christ, hmmm... Living on the edge of the Cornish moors, I hardly qualify for urban sophisticate status, but I found little to love in the film. Certainly it was overwhelming and 'powerful' - so many films are these days - filled with CGI crowds, gore and booming music. Certainly too, Jesus died a horrible death. So did thousands of others, scourged and crucified for rebellion. By focussing so absolutely on the physical torment of Jesus, on the sheer gruelling endurance-test of it all, Gibson creates a reductive and rather perverted version of Christianity, all pain and groaning, absolute good and evil, machismo and masochism. Sure enough, the early church had its death obsessions as well (read Cyprian's 'Exhortations to Martyrdom' for an insight into 3rd century 'fundamentalism'), but in the 21st century, Gibson's view seems designed to browbeat viewers in shamed acceptance of a very reactionary dogma - the 'shock and awe' approach to religious teaching perhaps. Maybe it is just to do with faith, though - I'm not a Christian of any description, and the film just summed up everything I find most disagreeable about Christianity at its most righteous and unlovely. Perhaps I'm just a sneering urban sophisticate after all...<br>
<br>
(icon of empty sneering, a la Alan Rickman...) <p></p><i></i>
Nathan Ross
