Today in Supreme Court History: July 15, 1819

7/15/1819: John Marshall publishes defense of McCulloch v. Maryland in the Alexandria Gazette under the pseudonym "A Friend of the Constitution."

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Campbell v. Florida, 400 U.S. 801 (decided July 15, 1970): denies cert in murder case where defendant argued that it was error to exclude jurors who would impose death penalty only if recommendation for mercy was added (this was between Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968, which struck a statute allowing peremptory excusals of jurors who had general objections to death penalty, and Wainwright v. Witt, 1985, can exclude automatically anti-death penalty jurors but not those who had reservations about it)

[Dan Schiavetta]

A thin day for actual Supreme Court activity, so let me review a movie.

Jesus of Nazareth (1976). I saw this over the space of a few days in the dorm lounge where I commandeered the TV (in those days the only TV’s in the dorm). Guys drifted in and out, muttering “come on, tack him up!” and things like that, feigning indifference, which was how guys acted in those days. Robert Powell’s Jesus, with his non-semitic blue eyes, was otherworldly and weird; I have yet to see a convincing Jesus on film (Jeffrey Hunter, to my mind, was the closest, King of Kings, 1961). But there are a lot of good things about this film — Rod Steiger’s Pilate as a harassed bureaucrat, Anne Bancroft’s fishwife Mary Magdalene, James Mason’s Joseph of Arimathea and Anthony Quinn as a conflicted Caiaphas.

Like a lot of atheists (I’m a lapsed Catholic) I wonder what Jesus was really like. He was probably short, scruffy and dark-skinned, more like Yasir Arafat than Powell or Hunter. (I once drove through much of St. Louis trying to find a black Jesus to gift to a friend of mine, a black Pentecostal -- I did finally find one, a lovely little alabaster bust.) Stripped of all the myth, I think the evidence supports that in first century Palestine there was a teacher (let’s call him Yeshua) who said some interesting things, who said that the end of the world was imminent, and who was crucified by the Romans. Other than that, we can’t be confident in anything written about him. The New Testament (and all those writings that didn’t get into it) were written in a prescientific age. Nowadays we believe that factual accuracy is important in getting to higher truths. In those days “stretching” the truth was considered o.k. in the service of some doctrine.

Anyway, back to 1976. I was 19 and searching for the truth about God. A lot of people are like that at that age, and in my case being away at college expanded that search immensely, because (Catholic) one didn’t ask such questions at home. I had friends at school who were Jewish and Protestant, but it was not an intellectually vibrant place (to put it mildly) and nobody talked about religion. “Jesus of Nazareth” was welcome, but only an early stop along a path that led me to a book in the crisis center (where I was on staff) called “The Private Sea”, which led me to “Honest to God” by John A.T. Robinson, and which faded away a few years later as I lost interest in the whole question. Now I’m comfortably an atheist, and ironically I’m now fascinated by New Testament scholarship. Now that I don’t feel the finger of God pointing at me, telling me that I must believe every word, I like looking up how things got changed and forged and redacted (for example, St. Paul’s odd instruction in 1 Cor. 14 for women to stay silent in church, right after he’s given instructions on how they may pray and prophesy there).

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, nice try but not so much a movie review as a chance to make political/cultural statements.
” In those days “stretching” the truth was considered o.k. in the service of some doctrine.”
I don’t think you’re paying attention. Stronger today than ever.

[Magister]

Reviews are valuable to the extent that they convey an honest reaction of the reviewer; otherwise it would more be a synopsis than a review.

I have much less history with religion-related seeking, so most Jesus films have had little impact for me. Two movies about religion that I found thought provoking were The Rapture (1991) and Leap of Faith (1992). The Rapture presents crazy beliefs as true and still ends up with the main character who held these beliefs rejecting God. Leap of Faith has Steve Martin as a con artist preacher, who abandons his con when his revival actually provides a healing miracle.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Leap of Faith sounds interesting -- like what happened to the Whoopi Goldberg character in "Ghost".

[Magister]

I think so, in the sense that neither can continue to fake it after seeing the real thing. But it was my understanding of the ending of Leap of Faith (although it's a long time since I saw the movie, so maybe I would have a different view of it now) that Steve Martin's preacher gives up faking it when he sees an actual miracle because he can't give his audience real miracles, only the fake stuff. But, like miracles, there's a lot of ambiguity. Good performances; and now I'm inclined to watch it again.

[defaultdotxbe]

Given that messiahs were a dime a dozen in 1st century Palestine I've always felt Jesus was likely an amalgamation of multiple teachers and leaders of the time. It would be very easy for 5 people to say "I saw the Messiah speaking here" or "I saw the Messiah perform a miracle there" and none of them realize they are talking about 5 different people, or people reading all the various gospels (not just the 4 canon gospels) and not realizing some or even all of them are about different people. It would explain some of the discontinuities even in the canon gospels, for example in Mark Jesus talks about the kingdom of god and hardly ever talks about himself, but in John he does almost nothing but talk about himself and who he is.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've heard about there being many Messiahs (of course, "Life of Brian"), but never that Jesus was a composite. It sounds plausible, especially the contrast you point out between Mark and John. Thanks!

The best lecturer I know of who is accessible on the internet is Dale B. Martin. You should check out his stuff, such as his Yale course. Also Bart Ehrman (though he tends to giggle and when he's excited he sounds like Barney Fife -- but read his books). Martin, who grew up evangelical but then came out gay, still is Christian, despite being as skeptical about the NT as I am.

Two things I wonder about:
1. Luke tells us that there were "many" gospels around before he even started to research his (1:1). That's an astounding statement. Except for Mark and snatches of Q, they've all been lost.
2. Most scholars today think that Mark really meant to end at 16:8. That the original ending was lost used to be the conventional view. That sounds very reasonable to me and I don't know why it's not treated with seriousness any more.

[defaultdotxbe]

Sounds interesting, I'll look into those guys

[Syd Henderson]

There's the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas which actually gives some insight. I always figured Jesus actually existed and the synoptic gospels give a good idea what he taught, but legends encrusted about him such as the miracles. Some of the miracles are similar to those attributed to Elisha, including healing lepers and raising the dead.

Same process with Mohammad, Buddha and some early Saints.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like all of those writers must have been examples of early "screen writers" of movies based on "actual events" who always feel the need to embellish the story.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is a niche on YouTube where some people are arguing that Jesus was a fiction created by the Roman Emporer to pacify the militancy of the Jews at the time.

I started watching it then somewhere in there, I can't remember where, there were some Jews arguing that one of the key data points supporting the theory was how anti-semetic the New Testament was.

That's more proof of Jesus being real than fake.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What seems odd is that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus until about the year 100, by which time the writer is merely repeating legends told by Christians. But there is too much circumstantial evidence of his existence. Ehrman has written a book about that.

Jesus’s message did seem designed to placate rebellious spirits. (“Render under Caesar . . . “) Jews rejected him because to them the Messiah would be a military not a spiritual savior.

About the year 90 the Jewish rabbinate decided to eject Christians from the synagogue because they were too disruptive. John’s Gospel refers to this, which is a reason why (along with its antisemitism) scholars give it a late date. Dr. Henry Abramson tells this story from the Jewish side in one of his wonderful online lectures, “Judaism and Early Christianity”.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The original documentary is called "Caeser's Messiah" and they do have some interesting observations and arguments. Just the one I mentioned had my eyes rolling.

Thanks for the tip on the Abramson, I'll add them to my list to check out.

[wolfefan]

I remember reading Honest To God in seminary. It was a fascinating book and very thought provoking. A lot of churches don't teach the value inherent in questioning. Jesus spent a lot of time questioning the religious dogmas and reframing the Torah and the prophets.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My friend was an Anglican monk and at his invitation I spent a few days at their retreat near Santa Barbara. A beautiful place, especially to this New Yorker. I asked one of them about HtG and he said it was considered “too radical” (this was 1980). But it’s a wonderful book and frees Jesus from parochialism — as someone put it, “the bishop took away our silver, but gave us gold”. It’s also an early sign (1963) of rumblings of what was about to happen, on so many fronts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lots of people, here and elsewhere, dismiss a lot of my predictions.
Much like predictions of what America would be like circa 1973 would have been dismissed in 1963.

Just sayin....

[Dr. Ed 2]

[Mr. Bumble]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Could you elaborate on that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I find it interesting both that John Marshall felt the need to defend his decision in Marbury v. Madison *and* to do so anonymously.

I've also long wondered why the Federalist Papers were written anonymously -- did Cancel Culture exist back then as well?

[Magister]

Publishing a legal argument as "A Friend of the Constitution" -- would this be the first and only amicus brief by a Chief Justice?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do Justice William O. Douglas' books count?

[Magister]

Which Chief Justice wrote them?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Fine, let me consult ChatGPT:

Morrison Waite wrote Hot Mormon Wives, a novelization of the U. S. v. Reynolds case. Does that count?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I read that one. Disappointingly,"Hot" only refers to temperature.

[Kazinski]

The first Supreme Court leak.

[Mr. Bumble]

So another case where the gun did it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if the deputy had just waited for backup to arrive -- which in a situation like this it soon would -- he'd be alive today.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what would you have called the people doing the same thing back in 1963????

Just sayin.

[Magister]

Yes, Dr. Ed 2, they laughed at many great thinkers and visionaries, but mostly they laughed at village idiots, circus clowns and court jesters. And the village idiots, circus clowns and court jesters laugh at you, because the basis of your predictions is solely what you want to happen.

[grb]

I never laugh at Nostradamus Ed. Hundreds of years from now people will probably be combing thru his thousands of predictions searching for a clue to their end times. And who knows? Maybe in a millennia or two, one will come true!