The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever

Entertainment Weekly has uploaded their list of “The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever.” According to Loren Rosson, this was previously published in June 2006 and only made it online this week. I recall his previous blog post on the films, though I didn’t post anything on it at that time.

Here is the list:

  1. The Passion of the Christ
  2. A Clockwork Orange
  3. Fahrenheit 9/11
  4. Deep Throat
  5. JFK
  6. The Last Temptation of Christ
  7. The Birth of a Nation
  8. Natural Born Killers
  9. Last Tango in Paris
  10. Baby Doll
  11. The Message
  12. The Deer Hunter
  13. The Da Vinci Code
  14. The Warriors
  15. Triumph of the Will
  16. United 93
  17. Freaks
  18. I Am Curious (Yellow)
  19. Basic Instinct
  20. Cannibal Holocaust
  21. Bonnie and Clyde
  22. Do the Right Thing
  23. Kids
  24. Caligula
  25. Aladdin

The list doesn’t contain many surprises, though I probably would have made a few changes. For instance, I was surprised that Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976) wasn’t on the list considering John Hinckley’s assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. Also, Hail Mary (Je vous salue, Marie; Jean-Luc Godard, 1985) should get the nod. Others that came to mind include Pink Flamingos (John Waters, 1972), Straw Dogs (Sam Peckinpah, 1971), and Cruising (William Friedkin, 1980). Of course, there are many gory and exploitation films which could have made the list as well (such as I Spit on Your Grave and other such banned films).


Laments, Complaints, Prayers, Pleas, or Petitions?

In response to my post on The Costly Loss of Lament for the Church, Tim Bulkeley over at SansBlogue rightfully noted that I have tended to continue employ the designation “laments” when referring to what Gunkel called Klagepsalmen. Tim prefers the term “complaints” when referring to the same psalms:

These psalms claim that something is wrong with the world, usually complaining that God has not acted to right the wrong and go on to petition God to put it right. They seldom stop at merely lamenting the wrong.

Tim highlights a fairly common critique of the appropriateness of the term “lament.” I would agree that the term “lament” isn’t entirely satisfactory since in English “lament” tends to be understood passively as a cry of sorrow or grief. In this regard, the psalmist isn’t really “lamenting.” Rather he is describing his distress and appealing to God for aid. That being said, I don’t think that “complaint” is entirely satisfactory either. In common usage, “complaint” tends to be a minor expression of displeasure; you complain about poor service at a restaurant or when your ride is late. In this regard I wonder if using the term “complaint” trivializes the psalms in question.

A number of scholars don’t use either term, but prefer to use terms that derive from the biblical text itself. Thus, Hans-Joachim Kraus, in his excellent commentary on the Psalms, calls laments “songs of prayer” based on the general Hebrew term for prayer, תפלה tefilla. Craig Broyles makes a similar move in his commentary by calling these psalms “prayer psalms.” The rationale for this move is twofold for Broyles. First, he prefers to employ a designation derived from the psalms themselves (as I already noted). Second, he finds that the term “lament” gives undue prominence to one motif in the psalms.

I wonder if a more appropriate name for these psalms may be “pleas” or “petitions.” Gunkel and most other psalms scholars after him have recognized the most important element of the lament psalm is the plea or petition for help. Gerstenberger calls it the “very heart of a complaint psalm” and claims that “in fact, all the other elements can be interpreted as preparing and supporting the petition” (Psalms, FOTL, 13).

I am happy to continue to employ the traditional term “lament” — and even to alternate it with “complaint.” But if I wanted to adopt a more appropriate name, I would probably use something like “prayer of petition” or “plea.”


Kosher Concubines?

There is an interesting article on “Kosher Concubines” in Arutz Sheva, an Israeli national online newspaper. The news story reports on a controversial article written by Professor Tzvi Zohar that proposes to deal with the problem of sex between unmarried religious Jewish young people by renewing the biblical institution of the pilegesh (פלגש×?), a sort of “kosher concubine.” The article (in modern Hebrew) appeared in the spring edition of the Israeli periodical Akdamot.

Here is an excerpt:

The thesis of Zohar’s article is that since scores of young men and women from the religious-Zionist community are shacking up together out of wedlock, something must be done to make this permitted in the eyes of Jewish Law.

….

To his understanding, there is no obligation for a couple to marry at all. However, in order that young unwed couples can have a clear conscience and shack up with each other until they find their permanent sanctified mates, he proposes to reinstate the Biblical practice of ‘kosher mistresses.’

This practice, he asserts, has been approved by a long list of respected halachic authorities in the past. All that a pilegesh has to do is go to the mikvah (ritual bath) according to the laws of Jewish family purity, in order to guard against the grave infraction of niddah, which outlaws physical contact with a woman during and shortly after her menstrual cycle. This would allow, Zohar asserts, young people to live together in a loving relationship without getting married, all under the “chuppah” [canopy] of Jewish Law.

The rest of the news story critiques Zohar’s questionable interpretation of the Jewish law. The biggest problem to his argument is that the in the Hebrew Bible a man who had a concubine lived with her on a permanent basis, just like a wife. In fact, concubines were pretty much the same as wives, though of a secondary rank. At any rate, the practice of taking a concubine in OT times is not really comparable to modern practices of casual sexual relationships.

Furthermore, while polygamy (technically polygyny) was practiced according to the Hebrew Bible and that men had more than one wife and/or concubines, this is never presented as an ideal. If anything, it is just the opposite. Here are a number of examples of polygyny in the Hebrew Bible:

  • Lamech with his two wives, Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:23)
  • Abraham with Sarah and his concubines Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16; 25:1–2)
  • Jacob with Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:15–30)
  • Esau and his three wives (Gen 26:34; 36:2; 28:9)
  • Gideon with his “many wives” (Judg 8:30)
  • Elkanah with Hannah and Peninnah (1 Sam 1:2)
  • David with seven named wives (1 Sam 18:17–30; 25:38–43; 2 Sam 3:2–5) and additional unnamed wives and concubines (2 Sam 5:13)
  • Solomon and his royal harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kgs 3:1; 11:3)
  • Rehoboam with his 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chron 11:21).

A few conclusions may be drawn from this list. First, it was rare to have more than one wife. Most of the examples cited are significant, whether leaders or rich or both. In addition, those that had more than one wife and/or concubine often suffered the consequences! In many of the above households polygyny was a major cause of significant problems. It is not very difficult to read between the lines and recognize the negative characterization of polygynous relationships (and of course, in some cases the condemnation is rather blatant).

At any rate, the article is certainly interesting — especially the discussion of Jewish halakah.


Mac Woes…

sickmac.jpgMy poor Macintosh G4 Dual has been sick. 🙁

I’ve been without my Mac (and without Accordance Bible Software!!) since the power supply died over one month ago. I figured, “no problemo, I’ll just go an pick up a new one and have it up and running in a day.” But, sadly, the power supply in my G4 isn’t your typical power supply (I love my Mac, but I REALLY wish Apple used more standardized parts!). You can’t buy them just anywhere. In fact, there was none to be had in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. And guess what… new ones are unbelievably expensive. Rather than just pay the typical $50-75 dollars for a new power supply like normal people, this Mac needs power supplies that cost upwards of a few hundred dollars. In fact, some yoho at our local Mac store quoted me an unofficial $400 price over the phone and suggested I just buy a new computer! Argh!

To make a long story short, I found a used power supply on eBay and purchased it on October 4, 2006 for just over $100. “Great!” I thought, I should get the part in a week to ten days like the seller said and then I’ll be up and running. It was just delivered yesterday. Hmmm… it seems that “a week to ten days” means more like “a month”!! I was not impressed, to say the least. (Of course, now I have the moral dilemma on how to rate this seller on eBay)

At any rate, I installed the power supply and everything seems to be working fine and dandy.

Now I am happy. 🙂

My Mac is up and running with a new (used) power supply.

Accordance is up and running.

Things in my world are as they should be.


Visitor 100,000 Please Stand Up!

codez-100000served-arches.jpgAt precisely 8:18:05 am on Friday 3 November 2006 my 100,000th visitor happened upon this blog. As I mentioned earlier, this lucky visitor gets a free book. The reader was from Jacksonville, Florida. If you think it was you, then email me at codex [at] biblical-studies [dot] com and let me know your IPS and your computer and monitor and we’ll discuss your book prize!

To everyone else, I just want to say, “Thank you for visiting!� I added the counter on July 7th 2005, so it took about 15 months to reach the 100,000 mark.

I am pleased and humbled that so many people have visited my blog (and that says nothing about my companion Codex website).

As I have mentioned before, I have very much enjoyed the blogging experience. I have enjoyed the camaraderie between bloggers and the virtual relationships I have developed with others. I look forward to meeting some of you at SBL in Washington later this month.

Again, thanks for visiting! (I hope it was worth your time!)