|
UPSG -> RE: For those with an interest in Mayan archaeology (3/14/2009 5:53:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
It's fascinating, thanks Toppy. I'd like to echo one of the commentators on the site you linked and ask why it is that the cosmologies of non-Christian religions are called myths, whilst the Book of Genesis isn't?
Kittin, that is not so. It is neither so in academia nor in theologically trained people in Catholic (or even liberal Protestant mainstream denominations).
My Western Civilization class - in book and lecture - in college made a point of stating that the book of Genesis was written while the Jews were in exile in Babylon under the Assyrians (ruthless bastards I might add) if I remember correctly. Academia and the Church both accept that the creation story in Genesis is myth and myth adopted from Assyrian creation story. If you ever read any educated clergy commentary on Genesis you will find at times they mention this. So, there is no fantastic secret. In fact the Rite of Initiation into the Catholic Church requires the reading of a book (at least the one I read during my adult confirmation - I did not get confirmed till I was an adult in my 20's) that points out St. Augustine stated that to properly interpret scripture, one needs knowledge in Hebrew numerical mysticism. For instance, the number 7 connotes something (completion) in the Bible as does the number 12 and for the most part every number mentioned in the Bible. It's not accidental Biblical writers wrote of 12 tribes of Israel or 12 Apostles of Jesus.
I've sat around for Bible study with "Bible based" so-called "non-denominational" Churches and they are often (not always) run by "pastors" that are ill trained in theology and incredibly ignorant of Christian history specifically and history in general. Nonetheless, this is the fastest and most popular form of Christianity growing throughout the USA and around the world. It's often a "prosperity Christianity" gospel at that.
("Non-denominational" is a logical fallacy because if one is Christian - not neo-Christian like the Mormons or Jehova Witnesses - they are either Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox and all "non-denomination" are Protestants, they just don't know it. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, from a tehological perspective, are "Church" and not denominations. The denomination phenominon is a Protestant creation and experience)
Most secular people tend to be as ignorant of Biblical criticism as many uneducated "non-denominational" Protestants (to distinguish from educated non-denominationals). The best people today perhaps, who understand methods of Biblical interpretation, are probably liberal mainstream Protestants and educated Catholics on Biblical theology. The liberal Protestants in particular have done exceptional work within the area of the "historical-critical" method of Biblical scholarship. Indeed, they pioneered this approach to Biblical criticism, and the Catholic Church followed along in their pioneering path. The Catholic Church tends to have members that will use both the heritage of patristic methods and modern historical-critical methodologies. I prefer this combined way myself. However, I was taught by a Catholic seminarian (who was trained by a Biblical theologian), in contemporary Catholic Bible study, the historical-critical method. This method requires drawing upon several academic disciplines (e.g. it requires utilizing maps for ancient Palestinian geography and knowledge of said history and customs, when tracking the footsteps of New Testament characters).
I took a number of semesters ago on the history of Latin America during the periods prior to European arrival. The Mayans as I remember (memory can be hazard to remembering incorrectly and this is why saving and referring back to data and books can be so helpful) were formed as city-states and not our classical concept of "empire" e.g. Aztec, Spanish, British et cetera. One of their great lessons to us modern - or more accurately "post-modern" - people might well be: showing what deforestation and internal warfare can do to a people by resulting in the collapse of their civilization. That might be to historically accurate for a contemporary people blinded by the ideology of Political Correctness though.
The negatives of Mel Gibson's great film is that its time frame is inaccurate. When the Europeans arrived the Mayan civilzation was already past decline, and many Myan cities laid abanbdoned and forgotten. His film was also likely tainted with ethnocentricism and a bias toward Catholicism specifically and Christianity in general. The latter may be forgiven for artistic interpretation and personal bias as we all have our biases whether we wish to acknowledge it or not - the best we can do is try to temper our biases with an attempt at fairness. The former is probably a form of bias less forgivable. Gibson's emphasizes on Mayan human sacrificial rituals, while grounded in some historical truth, depict a people cheering in bloodlust, which is likely more a product of biased artistic rendition (rooted in ethnocentricism) than solid historical fact.
The positives of Mel Gibson's great film without doubt, lie within a good story line and exceptional cinementography (as my brother who earned his masters in film will attest), as well as perhaps the largest and most costly created set and clothing design since the clssic film Ben Hur. The make up and costum designs were by all academic accounts, incredibly historically accurate. In that way it is one of the best articistic and cineomatic recreated glimpses into Mayan past as we have gotten in contemporary times. Gibson himself ought be given accolades for not just spending his own money in creating this non-European historical-fiction piece, but also for him evidently attempting some restraint of his personal biases by not only casting unknown (in the area of producing fim that is a big financial risk, hence the reliance on "star power" featuring as protagonists or lead characters in movies) Amerindians for the lead roles, and not only giving them noble roles, but he filmed the movie in Amerindian language and gave it English subtitles.
As a measure of fairness, in judging attempted restraint on personal bias, Gibson's fim rates a B+ or A-, in constrast to those great artistic films or recent times like 300 and what's that historical-fiction movie on the Crusades... "The Kingdom" I think it's called? Both of thos while great films in the artistic sense and as well in the area of historical accuracy to costume design, atttempted little to no restrain in cultural bias, and thus rate a D or F in that sense.
The Spartans became harbingers of democracy and staunch hetersoxuals in 300, whenin reality they were one of the most bisexual cultures to ever exist and they were far from democratic. I can't remember exactly but I think Sparta was either run under monarchy or dictatorship.
The Crusaders were Latin Catholic, or that is to say Roman Catholic which is a misnomer for Latin Catholic (though a very tiny few may have come from the Eastern Orthodox traditions e.g. black Nubia and Ethiopia possibly) and there were honorable knights that were devote Latin Catholics within their ranks. The movie, however, projects that any and all honorable knights had to be and were Protestant in theology, placing Protestants into history and events hundreds of years before their time. The great Saladin was indeed a relatively saintly man - far more saintly and cultured than many European knights and Crusaders - however, his own Muslim chronicler claims he ordered the slaughter of all Templars and Hospitalers immediaely after the battle of Hattin. The movie projects otherwise. Saladin was also a Kurd (Islamic Turks that disdain, and Iraqi's that bombed Kurds might want to take an ironic note of that) and he is said to have been homosexual and took a personal male slave of his as his lover. King Richard the Lion Heart was also supposedly homosexual. Both of them were completely two different men, that excelled in heroics in two entirely different ways, and both of them funny enough, were two of the greatest characters in the long epic of the Crusades.
But making people or individuals look like 100% good guys or 100% bad guys is a craft of propaganda. Look at how Western portrays Martin Luther and Mohammed as damn near saints with little to no personal faults. LMAO. [8|] If the regular public actually knew the historical truth and humanity of these two great historical figures, they might be less judgmental on the faults of great Presidents like Abe Lincoln, on Confedarate men of character like General Robert E. Lee, on the scores of Italian Reniassance Popes, and we might try to stop glossing over Thomas Jefferson's faults (e.g. reputedly bedding a young girl who was both his slave and the cousin or half-sister of his wife). We might be less judgmental period. We might actually see that people can be brilliant, have certain moral virtues, yet be involved in the sexual play (arguably some degrees of it a vice) of BDSM.
And for the record, culturally, Catholicism is known for, at least by those educated and above the brainwashing of disinformation, instilling the desire in its pupils to accept "gray areas" and to seek to understand what is foregin to them. Ergo Gibson's film on the Mayans (who today by the way are one of the most staunch ethnic Catholics within Mexico) and Napoleon in Islamic Egypt. Argubly, the Jesuits have excelled at this more fully and authentically then other Catholics or Catholic religious orders. Few religions or religious orders on earth can match Catholicism or more especially the Jesuits in seeking to understand foreign cultures and or adaption to such cultures and modes of thought. Secular agnostic or atheist people, just as prone to ethnocentric view points as anyone else, often fall beneath Jesuits in this area of disposition.
It might be added Catholicism has adapted traditional Mayan customs more respectfully into Catholicism (their clothing color into Mexican liturgy for example) arguably, better than the secular world has adapted Catholic feast days into its secularized holidays (e.g. Santa Claus for Christmas and the Easter Bunny for Easter). But I doubt few secular people even know Christmas and Easter are Catholic feast days - the former originating in the ethnic Coptic celebrations of Egypt contrary to the novel ideas of intrigue of Latin Catholics spawning the idea from Roman Pagans, though it adopted elements from that, but again the "gray area."
Of course, none of this is to say, Pizarro (spelling) and his merry band of lynchmen, or any other European Catholic adventure was without ethnocentric prejudice nor tolerant within the face of their own greed or want for honorifics.
|
|
|
|
