"The Passion's" Inaccurate History

[Clancie]

I know there are already a thread or two about Mel Gibson's movie, but I wanted to start a thread just about the historical issues. I think they're significant, just on their own.
Here's some of what some religious scholars said to Reuters:

"Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!" exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the Chicago-based Roman Catholic De Paul University. "I mean in your dreams. It would have been Greek."

Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite. Most Roman centurions in the Holy Land spoke Greek rather than Latin, historians and archaeologists told Reuters.

Crossan also said the Latin was so badly pronounced that it was almost incomprehensible. That seems incredibly sloppy--I mean, Latin?

Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's "basic flaw."

The film begins not when Jesus enters Jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of Jews but rather at night in a garden on the eve of the crucifixion when he is arrested by the Romans after being betrayed by Judas.

"Why did they need a traitor? Why did they need the night? Why didn't they grab him in the daytime?" Crossan asked.
"Because they did not want a riot," he said, explaining that Jesus was immensely popular among his fellow Jews, which is why the high priests and Romans felt threatened by him.
Those details, Crossan said, were absent in the film.

"The lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context," he told Reuters.

 

[Clancie]

More from the above article. I just think it's so interesting....
First, re: Gibson's relatively benign view of Pontius Pilate

One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving Jewish priests.

Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative.

"It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves," said Father Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem.

The gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early Christians felt it would be politically wise to "soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating" the Romans who ruled over them.

"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before him," said McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.

And...re: crucifixion

Crucifixion was a common punishment meted out by the Romans to rebellious Jews during Jesus's time. The Romans crucified so many Jews, said Zias, that "eventually they ran out of crosses and they ran out of space."

The depiction of the crucifixion was the part of the film most riddled with errors for Zias, who studied the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man from Jesus's time -- the only remains ever found of a crucified victim from antiquity.

Zias said Jesus would not have carried the entire cross to the crucifixion as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever efficient Romans.

"Nobody was physically able to carry the thing (the entire cross).It weighed about 350 pounds," Zias said. "He (Jesus) carried the cross-beam, maximum."

Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.
"Crucifixion was a form of state terror. They humiliated the crucified victim. Everybody was naked. Men, women and children," Zias said.

Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.
"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear."

 

[Zero]

I always love a historical accuracy debate over a mythological event...

 

[Darat]

Mel Gibson's previous "historical" movies don't exactly have a reputation for accuracy or a regard for the facts so I won’t be surprised if I learn that his latest one is the same.

Traditionally no Hollywood biblical movie has been too bothered with historical accuracy so perhaps he is just following that tradition.

(And we don't go to the movies to learn history do we?)

 

[Mycroft]

I always love a historical accuracy debate over a mythological event...

Oh come one. One can argue if Jesus is historical or mythical, but there is nothing mythological about the Romans killing people by crucifiction.

 

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Zero:
I always love a historical accuracy debate over a mythological event...
------------------------
Right on Zero! This has been irking the bejesus out of me lately.

In fairness though, it is possible there is a basis in fact. (I'm NOT referring to the supernatural aspects which of course are pure mythology.)

varwoche

 

[Clancie]

Hi Darat,
re: history and the movies. Well, some movies do better than others at it (and some are just...appalling). I think its always worthwhile to knowi what is and isn't historically true in a movie that claims to represent history. I think its especially important in this case as Gibson's anti-Jew bias seems quite inaccurate, even in terms of his "source material"--and much more extensive than what I'd previously thought.

And, Zero....Do you really think even the "historical Jesus" was a just a "myth"? Personally, speaking as a non-Christian, I've been very impressed by the Jesus scholars who've approached the Gospels (and Jesus in general) from the point of view of historians, far more than from the point of view of Christians. I think they've done some very good work.

Of course, Gibson's view is largely dictated by his own cult's religious dogma and his goal in emphasizing the relentless brutality and degradation of Jesus, as opposed to the numerous other themes he could have chosen related to his work and his life.

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course, Gibson's view is largely dictated by his own cult's religious dogma

The Catholic Church is a "cult"?

 

[crackmonkey]

So your main complaints seem to be that it was improbable that Jesus and Pilate spoke in Latin, and there was insufficient context provided. Pretty mild, if that's all your objections...

 

[Jocko]

So your main complaints seem to be that it was improbable that Jesus and Pilate spoke in Latin, and there was insufficient context provided. Pretty mild, if that's all your objections...

Yeah, if you wanna gripe about something, rent the Keanu Reeves portfolio. Tell me who thought it was a good idea to cast him in a Kenneth Branaugh Shakespearean production!

Besides, claims to authenticity aside (and what's authentic? There are four gospels in the only documentaion of the event, and they differ).... it's Gibson's money, Gibson's vision, and it's his damned movie. No one crawled up Spielberg's butt and nitpicked inaccuracies in Schindler's List (if there were any, I don't know, but I'm sure a determined critic could find/invent something).

I'm not so sure Greek would be the tongue of choice anyway- I studied 6 years of Latin and it was the only language used for offical documents, communications, etc. and it doesn't seem at all unreasonable that a local governor type would use it. It would depend more on the origin of the men in the garrison.

 

[Tmy]

Shoudlnt Jesus have been portyaed by a jew??


Why so much hoo haw over the jews being cast as villians.

How many movies have I-talians as mobsters? Arabs as terrorists? Blacks as drugdealers? Hispanics as gang memembers.
This happens all the time in fictional movies. Why no comparable outrage?

 

[whitefork]

Has Jesus ever been played by a Jew in the movies? I laugh affectionately at the memory of Max von Sydow as Jesus. Now, there was a Jesus - good blond Scandinavian Jesus, ja you betcha.

And who the heck knows about the true pronunciation of Latin and Aramaic. May as well use pig latin. That would be pretty cool.

Yeah and according to the evil atheist Shemp, may his name be glorified, "Christianity is a cult that got lucky". So too with Catholicism.

 

[Tmy]

I think the portray of the Devil was anti-satanic. The poor guy was trying to save Jeebus froma world of hurt!!!!


There was contraversy back wh Jesus Christ Superstar. Judas being played by a black guy.

I didnt think that was bad considering he was really the star of the story. Plus Judas was portrayed as well meaning victim of Gods plan, more than a villian.

 

[slimshady2357]

The Catholic Church is a "cult"?

Mel is a member of the Catholic Church? I thought he subscribed to an older, non-normal Catholicism that most catholics reject?

Adam

 

[Darat]

Slightly off-topic but does anyone know if there was this hullabaloo over “Jesus of Nazareth” (I think released in ’77)?

 

[Darat]

Mel is a member of the Catholic Church? I thought he subscribed to an older, non-normal Catholicism that most catholics reject?

Adam

This article describes him as a Roman Catholic:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040121-113810-3164r.htm

But this one seems to cast doubt on it.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=660 &whichpage=1

I can't find any mention that he has been excommunicated by the church or that he has said "I am no longer a Catholic" so on the balance of probability I'd go for saying he is still a Catholic.



(Edited for an embarrassing lack of a no.)

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Slimshady

Mel is a member of the Catholic Church? I thought he subscribed to an older, non-normal Catholicism that most catholics reject?

You're right, Adam. Gibson's fringe religion is considered an ultraconservative throw back to a much earlier Catholicism which rejects Vatican II. Here's a little about the church Gibson built and a bit about the religion

CBS and Gibson

Of course, Pope John Paul XXIII was the Pope who, at Vatican II, addressed and corrected the anti-Semitism that the Catholic Church had perpetuated for centuries (including in the notorious depictions of Jews in "Passion plays")

I don't think its coincidental that Gibson rejects the reforms of Vatican II, presumably including Pope John XXIII's correction of the Church's misrepresentation of the role of Jews in the death of Jesus.

Here's a prayer Pope John XXIII wrote to show the Catholic Church's regret for all the Jewish suffering mistakenly caused throughout the years by the Church in the name of Jesus......

Pope John XXIII

"We realize now that many, many centuries of blindness have dimmed our eyes so that we no longer see the beauty of Thy Chosen People and no longer recognize in their faces the features of our first-born brother. We realize that our brows are branded with the mark of Cain.

Centuries long has Abel lain in blood and tears because we had forgotten Thy love. Forgive us the curse which we unjustly laid on the name of the Jews. Forgive us that with our curse, we crucified Thee a second time."

 

[headscratcher4]

He is a member of a Catholic off-shoot. They are followers of a dead french bishop (Leferve?) exommunicated a number of years ago. THey reject Vatican II and, I think all Popes post Pius XII. They only have Latin Mass. Basically, you travel down Opus Dei highway and take a right-turn at the inquisition and you'll get there.

 

[bangdazap]

Slightly off-topic but does anyone know if there was this hullabaloo over “Jesus of Nazareth” (I think released in ’77)?

"Because director Franco Zeffirelli noted publicly that he intended to depict Jesus Christ as a human being rather than a religious icon, his expensive made-for-TV miniseries Jesus of Nazareth fell victim to protestors long before its April 3, 1977 debut. Despite the pullout of several sponsors, Jesus of Nazareth was aired as scheduled, sweeping the ratings in the process."

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:26102

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Tmy

Why so much hoo haw over the jews being cast as villians.

Why so much concern over a movie perpetuating the myth that Jews killed Jesus and possibly encouraging hatred of Jews because of that? (It's happened before).

"What's the big deal?"

You are kidding, Tmy, right?