Passion Of The Christ

[Guest spartacus]

The Mel Gibson movie - The Passion of the Christ has had mixed reviews, If you have seen it, do you think the Romans portrayed in the picture were seen to be brutal, evil thugs or were they like that back then?

 

Has Gibson distorted the truth, something of which Hollywood has a tendency to do!

[Marcus Regulus]

Spatacus,

Let's see -- the Romans in Palastine were a million miles from home, in a hostile environment with Zealots trying to kill them, revotuion was everywhere and it was a backwater province where there was little hope of advancement -- that might make you a bit testy.

 

I don't think they were Evil, I just think they were doing what they were told and being they didn't care for the Jews that much as the Jews didn't care for them. A chance to take out their frustrations on the King of the Jews might have been relished. They were, after all, human.

 

Mel has taken a lot of flack from Hollywood on this one which I have to admire, but at the same time I had a lot of problems as a Christian and historian with the movie.

 

1) The Biblical record was not followed so much as Catholic tradition and that bothered me.

2) It was more of the gospel according to Mel than according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

3) I felt the anger of the soldiers was a little over the top. Some maybe, but not all.

 

Historically accurate -- 1) The instruments of torture used -- first time I have seen a genuine Roman scourge in a Passion movie and its effects on the human body 2) I think the private meeting with Pilate and Jesus was right on with the way it would have happened. Pilate was well portrayed as a guy trying to get Jesus off, but realizing that ifa riot took place he would lose his position. He was trying to execute Roman justice of law but he was being pragmatic. Very Roman. 3) The effects of Crucifixion on a human being were portrayed accurately. 4) The Roman chain of command was well represented. 5) The language was accurately portrayed.

[Primus Pilus]

We discussed it a bit back here, but feel free to contuinue.

[Ursus]

I have not seen the movie nor intend to. I've heard the basic story countless times, and not sure how novel another experience would be even with the addition of authentic language and graphic violence.

 

However, I do have a question for those that have studied the whole event in greater detail than I. Would Jesus really have been executed via crucifixion? I was under the impression the Romans doled out that humiliating death only to slaves and traitors - the lowest of the low. Jesus was not a slave nor was he, from the Roman standpoint, a traitor. He would be at best just another annoying religious zealot in a land known for them (from the Roman perspective). If he had been executed, would it have not been through whatever means Jewish law used at the time?

[Guest spartacus]

Good question Ursus, I too am curious to the answer to that!

 

Hopefully someone will post an informed reply

[Primus Pilus]

He was a traitor. According the Caiphas and the Jewish religious authority he claimed to be King of the Jews. A wise strategy pursued by these men to force Pilate's hand. By using this claim, Jesus was definately in direct conflict with Roman imperial authority, and by law, he was a traitor.

[Marcus Regulus]

If he had been executed, would it have not been through whatever means Jewish law used at the time?

 

 

They didn't have the authority to execute someone, they were under Roman rule. As such they could not put Jesus to death. They even admit that why they came ot him in the first place in gospels. (John 18:28-32)

 

Would Jesus really have been executed via crucifixion?

 

He was treated as a traitor to the Roman govenement because that is the charge he was charged with before Pilate -- calling himself the King of the Jews (although Jesus never does call himself that -- others do)meant he was trator to the Roman govenment, after all he had been born under the Roman rule of Augustus. This is exactly the charge that was placed upon his cross above his head. Rebels since Spartacus at least had all been crucified and the fact was Jesus was convicted of being a rebel.

Crucifixion was the standard punishment for this crime.

[Anthrophobia]

Some of the punishment was exaggerated. For example, Jesus was never beaten by flails with pointy nails attached to them, but he was whipped by the stick. Jesus did suffer, but not to the extent that every inch of his flesh was gone.

[Zeke]

They didn't have the authority to execute someone, they were under Roman rule. As such they could not put Jesus to death. They even admit that why they came ot him in the first place in gospels. (John 18:28-32)

 

I have to contend that statment, I believe that while under Roman rule most peoples were allowed to use their laws to exacute people, if the Romans were in charge of exacuting EVERYONE then nothing would have ever gotten done, only special cases were brought before the Romans like that of Jesus. Most of the "Zeolots" probably had there own laws and exacuted people in the montains while the Romans wern't watching. Jesus was a special case and I also can quote from the bible.....

 

John 19:3

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

 

*By their law, not Roman law, the Romans thought he was inosent it was these Jewish fantics that ordered his murder and spurred the people on. Jesus's faith did not teach to rebel against Rome's rule either so he was off no threat at all.

 

Crucifixion was the standard punishment for this crime.

 

Also I don't know if that is a true fact, it takes alot of work to crucfie someone I would think the Romans would have just stabbed him the dark. They had to make a show though because thats what the main religious priests spurred them on. Roman power was most likely limiited to the cities alone they couldn't control all of the country side and the Jewish priests most likely had more power then we give them credit for. Pontious Pilate was a good man and a noble governor he tryed his best to be fair, especially with that "backwater" province was especially difficut to govern hence he had to be harsh at times though I wills tand to this day that the Romans were not guilty of any crime and I dobut the Roman EMpire declared Jesus a rebel. It was all the Zeolots idea.

[Jimbow]

I believe either execution was allowed (stoning for adultery, etc), but Jewish law forbade crucifixion - the only way to have Jesus crucified was to have the Romans do it, hence all of the politics. Or on the on the other hand, it may have been Roman law that only they could exercise the right to crucify, it being one of the worst ways to die by execution, if not THE worst, thus reserved for them alone.

 

Jim.

[Marcus Regulus]

The other alternative is that the Jews were particularly mad a Jesus and wanted to make an example of him by Crucifixion -- which seems ot be the case -- the gospel record shows an increase of hostilities by the Jews toward Jesus over time and he silenced them often. They didn't want this upstart's example to spread.

 

For example, Jesus was never beaten by flails with pointy nails attached to them, but he was whipped by the stick.

 

 

Incorrect he had both happen to him. You obviously need to study your Roman torture and punishment devices -- the flail with the pointy nails is called a scourge and it was actual designed to kill by torture by doing what you say -- ripping the flesh of the body. Pilate scourged Jesus because he figured that would be enough for the Jews and he might die anyway. They didn't think it was enough -- it ended in crucifixion. That part was one of the more accurate things in the movie.

[Jimbow]

Incorrect he had both happen to him. You obviously need to study your Roman torture and punishment devices -- the flail with the pointy nails is called a scourge and it was actual designed to kill by torture by doing what you say

 

 

Hey Marcus, can you quote the written evidence for this? If it's in the Bible, understand, I may question the accuracy of the so-called biblical record. As for historical evidence for 'the scourge's' purpose to be execution and not punishment, what is it?

 

 

 

I think the film "Passion of the Christ", which is what the thread is about, is pornographic, and only serves to propogandise Christian fundamental views, Catholic or non-Catholic, which I find sometimes quite equivalent to 12th Century views. I really have no problem in saying that, if anyone takes offence. It is a subjective film. I do not hold it in any esteem when it comes to historical accuracy, but just as another Hollywood flick with more gore and "so-called" realism, and with an impassioned maker. At its time, "The Robe" was probably less gruesome. By comparison, I find the whole depiction very cynical, and 'sensational' is a good word to use for it. It has no depiction of the 'love', only the 'suffering'. But, maybe that's why it's called the Passion.

 

I would absolutely question the whole depiction of Jesus Christ in Hollywood over the years. The fact is that NO FILMMAKER has dared to go with the subject to the degree it could be taken (Paul Verhoeven apparently really wants to do it), and He is labelled as the most controversial figure in history by many, including those promoting his worship. The only film with any true 'investigation' of the whole subject has to be "The Last Temptation of Christ". Based on a much maligned novel, it is a genuine attempt to humanise Christ, but still retain "His truth". I obviously don't believe in it all at all, but that's my choice, which many should say is 'God-given'.

 

The fact is that the director made it and financed it. It's his right, good on him, just to make that clear. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

Now, the Gospel of St. Thomas. There's a subject........... But, this is a Roman Forum.

 

 

Speaking of which, while we're on the subject of films:

 

 

[brian is writing graffiti on the palace wall. The Centurion catches him in the act]

Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?

Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "

Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !

Brian: Er, "Romanus" !

Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?

Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !

Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !

Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".

Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?

Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".

Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?

[He twists Brian's ear]

Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !

Centurion: Which is...?

Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !

Centurion: How many Romans?

Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !

Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?

Brian: Dative !

[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]

Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !

Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?

Brian: Er, "Domum" !

Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.

Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.

Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

 

 

 

 

Considering how much the Romans liked to grafittii - that's very very plausible

[Marcus Regulus]

Scourge. The Roman scourge was made of two or three leather thongs fixed to a handle and terminating in a number of small pieces of zinc or iron, brass or sharp pointed bone attached to them at various places to gouge the flesh. According to Jewish law the number of stripes was forty minus one (Deut. 25: 3), either in order to avoid exceeding the number forty or because the punishment consisted of thirteen stripes with three thongs (hence 13 X 3). The Romans used this method of torture to exact a confession and criminals condemned to crucifixion were generally scourged before being executed (Livy XXXIII, 36) . The victim was stripped to the waist, and bound in a stooping position, with the hands behind the back to a post or pillar. The suffering under the lash was intense. The body was frightfully lacerated. The Christian martyrs at Smyrna about 155 AD were so torn with the scourges that their veins were laid bare, and the inner muscles and sinews, and even the bowels, were exposed (Eusebius, Hist. iv. 15).

 

 

I highlighted the historical documents that record these things. I beleive the Bible because it proves itself historically accurate regularly, not everything to be sure, but over time it does. The fact is that Christianity depends of things being historical -- no historical resurrection -- no reason to beleive (1 Corinithians 15).

 

Mel's interprestion is subjective that was my problem with it as well. I am a conservitive Chrisitan, but no one has ever called me a fundamentalist and I have a lot of problems with the film, but some parts of it were OK historically.

 

The only film with any true 'investigation' of the whole subject has to be "The Last Temptation of Christ". Based on a much maligned novel

 

 

Note the word -- novel -- work of fiction as I recall. It is as subjective as Mel's. There is absolutely no historical evidence for what he says any more than Mel's.

 

which many should say is 'God-given'.

 

 

That would be correct - you have a God given right to choose to beleive or not -- I will not condemn you for it, that is not my place. Listen guys you must understand I will defend my faith, but I am not going to go looking for a fight here.

[TMPikachu]

The Mel Gibson movie - The Passion of the Christ has had mixed reviews, If you have seen it, do you think the Romans portrayed in the picture were seen to be brutal, evil thugs or were they like that back then?

The movie portrayed the Roman governor in an increadibly sympathetic light. It's got to be taken into consideration that the gospel was written at a time Romans were still in power, badmouthing them would draw on unneeded negative attention. The growing Christian cult were also generally not on good terms with the Jews, so putting most of the blame on them would show the attitude of the times. Accounts from other sources show that the governor was actually a big ass of sorts. He enjoyed offending Jews, even breaking Roman laws to do so (something related to leaving the Jewish temples alone), and Jesus would've been just another convict on death row in his eyes.

 

It's not so much Mel Gibson distorting the truth, as he is using a somewhat biased source.

[Marcus Regulus]

TMPikachu,

He enjoyed offending Jews, even breaking Roman laws to do so (something related to leaving the Jewish temples alone), and Jesus would've been just another convict on death row in his eyes.

 

Then maybe the the movie is more accurate on that point -- if he enjoyed offending the Jewish leaders then he would have wanted Jesus to get off free so they would be offended -- they were the ones that wanted him dead. You could look at it as Pilate trying to make them mad.

 

The big thing to remember -- Pilate could not have a rebellion happen on his watch! It would have been the end of his life as a Roman official. Palastine being a backwater provence no one wanted to be at in the first place. Pilate would have wanted to do his time and do well to get back to Rome and another assignment. If the Jews were look like they were about to rebel and the soldiers not looking like they could control the situation it was gonig to be doom on Pilate. I think this is the overarching problem facing Pilate and it dominates his decisions.