Talk:The Passion of the Christ/Archive 1

Is it "anti-Semitic" to say that Jews are collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus? Which churches (a) have said or (b) currently say this?

Mel Gibson's upcoming Passion will "lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs", according to his friend Gary Giuffre, a traditionalist Catholic. Gibson is a non-traditional Catholic. 

--Uncle Ed 15:13 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * One would need to hold a very narrow view of traditional Catholicism to advance that view; which claims the man who popularized the term Traditional Catholic in 2004 is not indeed a Traditional Catholic.


 * Wikipedia's article on Mel Gibson says he is a traditional Catholic. He built a chapel for the practice of traditional mass. On the set of his religious propaganda film, The Passion of Christ Gibson invited priests to conduct Traditional Mass according to the rituals of St. Pios X. When your self-produced film is promoting a religious sect that covertly embraces terrorists at the same time armys are attacking religious centers of comparable Islamic sects, its difficult to be much more traditionalist Catholic. Hutton Gibson, his father, is a notoriously traditional Catholic who denies he is a holocaust denier because he claims there was no holocaust to deny. "There weren't that many Jews in all of Europe", Hutton Gibson told the New York Times.

[Hutton Gibson with Willis Carto].

DontMessWithThis 21:28, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can think of one Christian church which makes that statement, you know which. That said, in the Bible, it was Jews who refered Jesus to the Romans, who then followed their laws. Of course, H/h e was actually killed by Roman soldiers. Pakaran.


 * Well, my church has said (a) that all mankind is collectively responsible for the crucifixion; and (b) that the Jewish people should not have crucified Jesus, because he was the Messiah (although Jesus forgave them "because they knew not what they were doing"); but stresses that John the Baptist had the primary responsibility of informing Israel that Jesus the Messiah (it was John's decision to remain separate from Jesus - "He must increase, I must decrease" - which caused the most trouble).


 * I don't think all of the above is relevant to the article on the movie, but it probably should go somewhere. Any ideas, my fellow bureaucrat? --Uncle Ed 14:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed this line from the article, "Jewish groups reject such statements as false accusations of deicide.". This is because the statement that preceded it was actually a conciliatory one, which did not accuse anyone of anything. DJ Clayworth 14:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Gibson originally claimed that this movie was based solely on the New Testament; however it has more recently been revealed that it is inspired by the writings of a 19th-century nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who wrote a number of grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews.

We can't say Gibson originally claimed something unless he has stopped claming it.


 * I don't understand. Gibson did originally make this claim. What he said later on doesn't change what he said in the past. His quotes are on the record as saying that this movie was based solely on the New Testament. Later, when it came out that it was based on someone else's "vision" of the New Testament, his people admitted that this was true.  RK 16:00, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The phrase it has more recently been revealed implies that Wikipedia endorses the other view of how the movie was inspired. Better to say Meir Restenbaum points out several parallels between the screenplay and the writings of... (assuming such parallels do exist, I'd love to see them in the article).


 * No, it doesn't do that at all. It merely states that recently Gibson admitted that this movie was not inspired solely by the New Testament. Mel Gibson and his associates have now stated that their work is also based on a certain nun's mystical revelations. The issue is not that someone saw certain parallels; it is now a fact out in the open that Gibson's script is in part based on this nun's writings. RK 16:00, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or we could write A anti-defamation league declared, "Gibson's screenplay reeks of the same kind of anti-Semitism as the notorious Emmerich caricatures.


 * See above. Unnecessary. This is no longer a secret, as it was a few months ago. The cat is out of the bag, and to the best of my knowledge no one on Gibson's side denies this. RK 16:00, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let's not do a whitewash. But let's also be careful about attributing POV. --Uncle Ed 15:43, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RK. I stand corrected. I hope you will add documentation for all that into the article, and restore the repaired text. Good work. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Gibson's controversial religious film THE PASSION has been praised as the best adaptation of The Bible in Hollywood history by an acclaimed American reviewer, who is also an orthodox Jew -- Critic Michael Medved spoke on television of his approval of the $25.6 million film, funded entirely by devout Roman Catholic Gibson.

Can we work the above factoid into the article? --Uncle Ed 20:27, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done for the day. But I wonder if this article is really accurate or balanced.

I'd like to know more about why some Jews fear the final version of the movie will be "anti-Semitic". The ADL's views need amplification.

While waiting for RK to come back and answer this for me, I'll speculate (drawing in part on my own Jewish background): Are these reasons correct? Are they even close?
 * any hint that Jews were "responsible" for Jesus' crucifixion seems like "blaming Jews for the crucifion" -- which many Jews regard as anti-Semitic.
 * any assertion that it was "God's will" for Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah is anti-Semitic.


 * I disagree with the second statement, as someone who actually sees fairly minor differences between Christians and Jews. I was brought up Christian btw.  If a Jew says it is "God's will" for nonpracting/familial Jews to keep Kosher, is that anti-Christian?  I comment above about "blame".  Judas was a Jew, but I'd say that the Romans, or prophecy, or the need for redemption, are all more responsible than Jews were according to the Bible.  Is that statement anti-God, since He required redemption?  Pakaran. 21:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Move

I'm not sure this article should have been moved like this. I presume the maove was made because this is the technically correct name of the movie. However the article also contains references to other movies, plays etc. whose title is The Passion. I suggest that The Passion needs to reference these, and contain a link to The Passion of Christ, rather than just being a redirect.

DJ Clayworth 15:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have to ask: what the flippin' 'eck does Gibson's father have to do with the movie? He didn't work on it, right? Gibson himself has never said anything to indicate that he shares his father's beliefs about the Holocaust, right? So why is this even worthy of mention? Please advise. I've edited it to make clear that Gibson has given no indication that he shares his father's loony views, but I'd like to remove this section entirely. --Mirv 10:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Gibson's refuses to contradict his father's views. If you carerfully read Mel Gibson's statements, you will find that in most cases, he agrees with his father, and tries to cast his father's views in a favorable light, without denying them. For example, his father is a Holocaust denier. Gibson refused to contradict his father, and claimed that his Dad's position is not really Holocaust denial, because his Dad is just questioning statisitics. That is intellectually dishonest; it is the very basis of Holocaust denial itself. If you read Holocaust denual literature you will find the exact same statements. Gibson also explicitly supports his father's anti-Catholic Church stance, and supports the breakaway traditional Catholic movement. This movement itself is seen as having an anti-Semitic undertone, as many of its adherents (including Hutton) believe that "the Jews" now control the Catholic church, and must be fought against. RK 14:20, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * A: Not disagreeing with someone does not mean that one agrees with him. B: Did you consider the possibility that Gibson didn't want to badmouth his father in public -- that his defense was based on filial loyalty rather than intellectual agreement? C: as for the stuff about Gibson's sect, well, I'll look into that and see how explicitly he supports the anti-Semitic aspects of it. --Mirv 14:29, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

most Semitic-looking Jesus
"Jim Caviezel portrays perhaps the most Semitic-looking Jesus ever on film"

What are the qualifications? Dark hairs, eyes..?.. And? Is this a stereotype? --Menchi ( Talk ) 06:27, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Their seem to be some fake quotes, with fake references in the article. 205.188.209.74 Appears to have vandalized The Passion of the Christ on 18:41, 21 Dec 2003 (See []). Dbabbitt 17:42, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alleged Endorsement from JP2
I removed the following: '' including Pope John Paul II who praised the film and wrote of its accuracy, "It is as it was." ''

The comments attributed to Pope John Paul II are baseless and he &#8216;&#8216;told no one his opinion.&#8217;&#8217; says Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz who viewed the film with JP2. Usedbook 20:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Father Hallinan, perhaps facetiously, claimed that the film focuses too much on Roman responsibility.

"Perhaps facetiously"? Come on. I don't believe the NPOV means we have to be so humour impared that we can't acknowledge sarcasm and irony when it stares us in the face. The whole paragraph that contains this needs to be rewritten. As it stands, it comes off like it was written by someone who failed to get the rather obvious joke. ShaneKing 04:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed stuff about Mel Gibson's father. I suggest moving it to either the article on Hutton Gibson himself, or Mel Gibson. DJ Clayworth 04:33, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All of this Irrelevant
Is it really relevant to include a piece on Gibson's religious views, whatever they are? Or whether it departs from accepted religious views? Every single portrayal of Jesus on film has done this in one way or another. It's a review of an artistic creation! - this is an article about a new movie - please let the viewer make up her or his mind after seeing the film. I'm inclined to delete the last two paragraphs but one.

Agendum 00:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

A small critique
I just wanna say I saw the movie today and it shaked my bones. Interesting enough, although it was one of the best movies Ive ever seen, I dont wanna see it again. Its just an experience.

Antonio Shake Rattle and Roll Martin

Historical and factual criticism
I'm concerned about this section now, now that I've seen the movie. Basically, I didn't really see the first or last points in the movie at all. The first one basically states that nails alone wouldn't be able to support somebody, but the movie doesn't depict this. Rather, it depicts nails and rope together. The last point talks about the height of the cross, which also didn't seem to be accurate based on what I saw in the movie. The cross seemed to be about nine feet long or so, ample to support a human and the necessary space in the ground to keep it upright. The second point I can't really attest to. RadicalBender 07:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I added that section based on pre-release notes. Regarding the nails, I'd have to watch the movie closely to see if the ropes were meant as primary support, or as temporary restraints. Regarding the height of the cross, a cross needs both underground, and aboveground, height. The actor is roughly six feet tall (6'2"), the footage I've seen shows additional suspension of something similar to his height, so, to reach the ground, it should be around 12 feet. To support the weight, usually a third of a fencepost (with no upper weight) should have at least a third buried, so, the post should have been at least 18 feet tall. If he was only being held a mere 3 feet off of the ground, that would be a nine-foot above ground cross, or a 13 1/2 foot cross carried. Ronabop 09:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Having seen the movie, I remember Jesus' feet being at about head height; say five feet above ground. Also his knees were bent, so feet to head he was probably about five feet. To me the cross looked like it could easily have been twelve or more feet high, giving us at least a couple of feet to put in the ground. Also the cross appeared to be embedded in rock, and could have had additional support round the base. Plus let's put this in context; every other movie in the world takes liberties with the size of props. It's part of the trade. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Violence
This is the most violent film I have ever seen. Roger Ebert


 * That should be attributed to him as POV, and added to the article. That said, is it more violent than, say, A Clockwork Orange?  I haven't seen TPoTC.  Pakaran. 20:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll let you know Monday, if I survive watching The Passion of the Christ this weekend. Ebert said it would have gotten an NC-17. --Uncle Ed 21:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Herod
"Herod is portrayed as a mincing, lisping effeminate homosexual, complete with a toy-boy. This is the traditional caricature from Medieval Passion Plays, does not appear in the Bible, and is historically inaccurate."


 * Herod died about 3-4 BC, IIRC, which makes him historically difficult to portray, but perhaps a description such as "Herod is portrayed as a mincing, lisping, effeminate, individual, complete with a male companion." would play less into wikipedia being a source of stereotypes. Not all mincing, lisping, effemintate men are actually gay. Europe in the 1700's, for example, has lots of mincing, lisping, effeminate straight men who hung out with other men.Ronabop 12:28, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You're thinking of Herod the Great (died around 4BC) who is the Herod from the time of Jesus birth. This Herod is Herod Antipas his son. DJ Clayworth 13:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Was either Herod even in the movie? I just saw it, and I don't recall seeing Herod, and I certainly don't remember a "mincing, lisping, effeminate homosexual, complete with a boy-toy". -Branddobbe 06:56, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * yup, Herod Antipas was there. He was the heavyset, mascara'd guy who eventually said "Take this fool out of my sight" because Jesus wouldn't even speak a word to him. JDG 07:41, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having now seen this movie, I have removed some chunks of the article. First I removed the sentence criticising it for adding the character of Caiaphas' wife; Caiaphas' wife does not appear.

I also removed the section that criticised the movie for using a 'finely milled' cross, and putting nails in the hands. I removed it because the cross in the movie is a 'rough hewn' cross (exactly what the paragraph said it should be) and because the movie uses a combination of nails and rope on the hands (exactly what the paragraph said it should). The same paragraph, which was added by one person, also contained criticisms of the sizeof the cross, but given the first two inaccuracies I saw no reason to trust that the third was correct. DJ Clayworth 13:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I was that "one person", and after having seen the movie today, I was coming back to edit and delete material. Since the rope was fairly tightly bound at the wrists, it's theoretically possible to combine both the rope and the nails as a form of support (through the rope would make the nails redundant devices of torture, but this movie was highlighting torture, so it works artistically, if a total waste of Roman time and effort (and metal!) in killing a person via crucifixtion).


 * As far as the squaring and milling of wood 2000 years ago, I laughed out loud when I saw the "tall table" (obviously much more modern technology) in the movie. When I was referring to rough hewn, I was thinking of log cabin rough, growing olive-tree rough. It wouldn't make much sense for the romans to bother making large sections smooth, semi smooth, or even bother with removing much (or any) bark, as long as "piece one" fit into "piece two" well enough to asphixiate a guy when his legs were eventually broken, and the pieces could be raised. Why would the romans, as in the movie, make a flat, squared, mitered, joined, pre-drilled, whole t crucifix, just to kill common thieves and murderers?


 * Before I saw the movie, I was also going to add a section about lintels and Tau (T) crosses, and X (spead-eagle) crosses, but I noted that the christ character got his own, special, wood to carry, the other two just had to carry a lintel. (Tau lintels being more efficient, because the condemned just had to be lifted up onto a pre-planted support spike). Again, this matches with the artistic license taken in the movie. (Hero characters often have cars that don't get scratched, guns that don't run out of bullets, and bigger burdens than their peers).


 * Addressing the height of the cross, It was all over the place. I assume they used several crosses, as the bark on the cross jumped around, the height jumped around. I guess it's possibly no more relevant to the piece than the inconsistant eye-colorations, and there is, perhaps, an argument to be made for poetic license. If the cross used was always the same cross, it would have been too heavy for any one man to physically carry, which would have broken a common theme in the story (though that sentiment is part of the story).


 * Anyways, thanks for the fixes and cleanups. It was based on an article about pre-release observations and guesses, and badly needed revision. Ronabop 09:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article page is an orphan!
And I wonder if anybody is even reading it. I did a search on Google and didn't find it. Seems silly writing an article that only wiki editors read, lol ChessPlayer 15:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there a joke I missed here, ChessPlayer? DJ Clayworth 20:28, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Will anyone object if I remove the 'anecdotal evidence' on the grounds that it is, well, anecdotal evidence? DJ Clayworth 17:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Time to split this article?
Is it time to split this article into two articles, one following the film itself, and the one focusing on the popular culture's reaction to the film? - Bevo 17:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say don't, because in a few months this article is going to stop growing anyway. DJ Clayworth 17:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but...
Does the letter to the editor we quote about the high schooler saying "I hate the Jews" feel credible to anyone? It looks to me exactly like the sort of thing someone would make up in order to discredit the film. I say this as someone who hasn't seen it, and may very well hate it -- no idea. But the letter just seems too perfect, doesn't it? The daughter of Holocaust survivors happens to have a girl, in 1st period, Monday morning, who in three sentences gets to blatant prejudice? As a high school teacher myself, I can assure you, most kids do not come out with controversial feelings so blatantly, and certainly not so quickly. Ok, sure, we can hide behind "we're just reporting what the letter claimed", but frankly, I think it a far too unreliable source for us to put it in here. Will there be an outcry if I remove it? Jwrosenzweig 17:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it in an ==External link== form, with the actual text of the letter in the linked resource. - Bevo 18:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly, only available to subscribed users.....although I don't see any indication from the latimes.com site that the letter we quote from is even there today! The index mentions a letter about The Passion, but says nothing about high schooler reaction or Anti-Semitic fallout.  The letter we quote may be entirely false! Jwrosenzweig 18:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Look at to check me, but it doesn't look like this letter is there today. Jwrosenzweig 18:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: the "anecdotal evidence" DJ refers to above is the letter I am challenging. I'm assuming that means he agrees.  Since Bevo wants it linked externally (which we can't do) and DJ wants it cut, I'm going to cut it and move the text here -- that way it can be moved back if we decide we want that (though I certainly don't). Jwrosenzweig 18:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Letter text and the response paragraph that I (Jwrosenzweig) cut from the article: A letter writer to the Los Angeles Times (3/3/04) provided some anecdotal evidence that the film does indeed have the effect of fostering ethnic hatred. Her brief letter is quoted in full:


 * "I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room.  She asks if I had seen the film 'The Passion'.


 * I answer: "No."


 * She continues, 'It was so sad. I cried so much.  I hate the Jews.'


 * Very, very, sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson."


 * It should be noted that this case, assuming it is true, involves just one teenager. No controlled studies have yet been carried out to determine the effect of the film on young people in general.
 * Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi JWR,


 * I'd not worry about whether the letter was made up by Opus33. Hard copies of the Los Angeles Times get sent to university libraries and news shops all over, so it would be pretty hard to put one over like that.  I've attached a digital image of the printed letter to your discussion page to reassure you on this point.


 * You also mentioned the possibility that the person who wrote the letter is somehow a rabble-rouser, who made up the story herself. I feel this is unlikely, and that it's more plausible that she (and perhaps also the LA Times editors) distilled a longer conversation into its essence.


 * You're right that we can't verify the letter's claims, and I'm hardly bent out of shape that you removed it. I'm more concerned with the letter itself, which I tend to think is authentic and disturbing.


 * I appreciate your scholarly vigilance and hope you will continue to exercise it. Regards, Opus33 02:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The point, though, is that this is exactly one instance. And we know nothing about the background. Maybe this teenager was a KKK member, and already hated Jews. Anecdotes have a definite place in a newspaper letters page: not in an encyclopedia.

DJ Clayworth 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the Denver Church which posted a "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus! Settled!" sign perfectly verifiable? - Nunh-huh 02:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So is his follow-up sign:"I am deeply sorry for offending the Jewish people, whom I love.". DJ Clayworth 14:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I count myself fortunate in not having to rely on that particular pastor's definition of love. -- Nunh-huh 01:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"The woman taken in adultery is certainly not Mary Magdalene". How do we know? The woman is unnamed, as you say, so how do we know who it is? There is certainly a long tradition saying they are the same. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't claim any particular scholarship on this, but I did some fact checking before adding the statement that seems to bear it out. The biography of MM in the Catholic Encyclopedia is very detailed and makes no mention of her as the woman about to be stoned. Another site I visited, apparently of an American Protestant pastor, specifically stated MM was not this woman. Also, it's a matter of logic. MM had been a prostitute when she was inspired by Jesus and became part of his general entourage. It is not likely she had a husband. The woman taken in adultery, obviously, was married. Also, if MM was enough of a recognized personage to merit a mention by name in all four Gospels when they recount those present at the crucifixion, why wouldn't they have mentioned her name if she was the one about to be stoned... But I'll look into it more. JDG 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article (was in the section on details that are not in the Gospels):


 * Furthermore for catholics it is not necessary to have all details in the Bible, because the final revelation of God is taken from the Bibel and the oral Apostolic Tradition (till the death of the last Apostle). Therefore this discussion is also touching the fondaments of Christian faith.

As I said in the edit summary, this seems to be accurate, but I can't quite make sense of it, and this article isn't the place to discuss or dispute variations of Christian doctrine anyway. (And do Sr. Emmerich's visions have the official seal of approval?) --67.69.188.153 11:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * there are three elements many Jews and others who have faulted the movie take issue with. First, although the movie depicts both Jews and Romans assaulting and battering Jesus, the vast majority of screen-time is devoted to depicting Jewish violence. Second, many Jews, such as the High Priest, are portrayed as physically ugly, perhaps drawing on stock anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews. Gibson has explicitly stated that the movie assumes, and is meant to portray, all humanity as charing guilt for Jesus's torture and death, which leads to the third, more subtle point. Gibson is not the first artist who has hoped to communicate this shared burden. Johann Sebastian Bach was presumably aware of anti-Jewish uses of passion plays, and when he composed the St. Matthew Passion he chose to have the entire chorus, rather than one group, cry out for Jesus's crucifiction. Gibson's movie, however, highlights the role of the Jewish leadership, and portrays Pilate as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to crucify Jesus because he cannot stand up to Jewish pressure. Pilate shares in guilt, but his guilt is more that of a moral coward than an active persecuter of Jesus. For many Jews, the portrayal of Jews in the movie can only be understood relative to the portrayal of Pilate, and Gibson's account is a perversion of history. Historical sources make it clear that Pilate was a greedy, choleric, and cruel tyrant who readily executed any Jewish rebel. For many Jews, it is painful to see a portrayal of Roman-Jewish relations where Roman leaders bow to the interests of Jewish leaders, when the opposite was the case, and where the Romans, oppressors of Jews, are presented as more sympathetic than the Jews they oppressed.

I'm glad that there's finally some explanation of why this movie was seen as anti-Semitic; however, there are some inaccuracies in the above which need addressing.

First: though the screen time of the Temple guards beating up Jesus may be longer than the time given to the Roman violence (I doubt it, but I didn't bring a stopwatch), I don't think it matters. The horrifyingly graphic, painful-to-watch acts of violence -- the scourging, the Via Dolorosa, and the crucifixion -- are all perpetrated by Roman soldiers, who, as Romans would, think it's all great fun. Did any of the people raising this complaint actually watch the movie?

Second: a fair comment, as too many of the Bad People (aside from Satan) are grotesque caricatures; however, not all the Jewish characters fit the description, and the same could be said of the Romans (one of them is even credited as "Brutish Roman soldier".)

Third: This is an excellent point, and I think Gibson slipped up in not depicting Caiaphas' very good reason for wanting Jesus dead. The Gospel of John, whose writer probably knew Caiaphas quite well, portrays him as being (quite rightly) afraid of what the Romans would do if Jesus or his followers started a violent revolt, as had some of the other wandering preachers of the era; Gibson left that out, instead showing Pilate as being afraid of what the Emperor would do to him in the event of another Judaean uprising. (The depiction of Pilate is however faithful to the Gospel accounts, which while they might be accurate in showing him to be apathetic and ignorant about internal Jewish theological disputes, do ignore his incompetence, corruption, and cruelty, which are all amply demonstrated in other records. In my opinion at least, Pilate probably would not have any reservations about executing a troublesome itinerant Galilean.)

--67.69.188.153 20:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A few comments. If you add up the time spent by the Romans in flogging Jesus, plus the time spent torturing him while he carries his cross, plus the time spent nailing him to the cross, I would be astonished if the screen time of Romans brutalising Jesus was less than the Temple guards. The Romans took over from the Temple guards way less than half way through the movie. All of the above also ignores the sympathetic portrayal of other Jews; Jesus followers and mother are of course Jews, but additionally there is a very sympathetic portrayal of Simon of Cyrene, the Jewish man who carried Jesus' cross. He got much more screen time than a minimally literal adherence to the gospel narrative would require, and comes over as very sympathetic. The Jewish woman who runs out to wipe Jesus' brow looks like a pretty positive portrayal to me. In the trial before the Jewish leaders, at least one of the Jewish leaders is heard denouncing the proceedings (if I remember correctly) as outrageous. While the crowd before Pilate is hostile to Jesus, it is portrayed as an orchestrated mob under the control of Caiphas' faction, not representitive of the people as a whole. The crowd that watches Jesus on the way to the cross shows much more of a mixed reaction; some people in it, presumably Jews and not just Jesus' followers, are clearly horrified and disgusted. None of these portrayals are the actions of a director trying to to place guilt on an entire race. DJ Clayworth 03:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More the the "Mary Magdalene" question above. A little research reveals that most scholars do indeed think it unlikely that Mary Magdalene and the woman taken in adultery were the same person. However it is not impossible. Firstly, the Gospels do not record the Mary M was a prostitute, though it's a common tradition I believe. Second, it's far from impossible that a married person is a prostitute. In fact I believe that women who leave their husbands for any reason often had few options when it came to making money. Third, you don't have to be married to commit adultery - all you have to do is sleep with someone who is married.

Anyway, logic aside, I think this is just Gibson making use of a little dramatic license. It seems a reasonable device for contrasting Jesus' forgiving teaching with the unforgiveness of those crucifying him. DJ Clayworth 04:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Language rumor

 * This has led to criticisms of the film's historical accuracy, with many scholars pointing out that the Roman soldiers in Judea would have spoken mainly Greek, not Latin.

Two different laymen I met have made the same remark. I wonder where they heard this, because there's no historical basis for it. Did some film reviewer or other advocate who hates the movie start this rumor?


 * "Latin was spoken by the Roman soldiers occupying the region. Greek was spoken throughout the Roman Empire, thanks to Alexander the Great, but was seen as a sign of secularization and thus resisted by many Jews."

The only sources I've found who make the "Greek" claim are in blogs; I don't think these should be cited as scholarly references. Maybe we can use blogs to show what non-scholars think. ''A lot of people seem to think that Roman soldiers would have spoken Greek. Scholars generally maintain that they would have spoken Latin.'' --Uncle Ed 14:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: I did some more googling, and found a trend: reviewers who hated the movie said, in effect, not only that but the language was not authentic. None of them offered any proof of the "Roman soldiers spoke Greek" claim; they merely added this to their one-sided lists of reasons why the movie was awful.

Someone who knows ancient Rome, please comment. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ed, I too have read many reviews that make this claim (that the soldiers spoke Greek), although frankly it seems like a pretty trivial point. But you seem very convinced that in fact they spoke Latin.  I am not saying you are wrong, but how can you be so sure? Slrubenstein


 * I probably wasn't clear enough: I meant that the phrase many scholars pointing out isn't borne out by my research. Rather, it should be "many negative reviewers claimed..." I need help researching this, or at least deciding how to phrase the uncertainty.


 * How about, "Several reviewers knocked the film for having the Roman soldiers speak Latin rather than Greek."?


 * We could also mention that the linguistic scholar Mel hired, said that Roman soldiers generally spoke Latin.

--Ed

Their Latin
I have also heard complains about it not being Greek. What shocked me was that they pronounce in "Romance". Say "Caesar" is pronounced with "che". Isn't 33 AD too early for this pronunciation? Even the Aramaic lines had "kaisar". On the other hand, I read that the Jesuit assessor trained the actors especifically in Vulgar Latin. So, is the C+e|i pronunciation historically correct? -- Error 02:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've also seen that, its based on modern Italian, which is unreliable, I realized that some actors where Italian, and they have a tendence to speak the Italian way - the "che" thing is theirs. But Romance has been allways the spoken language, the Classical Latin was used for writing (we do the same thing today with Portuguese, we speak and write somewhat differently, even grammar as some difference, and today we have school and TV). If not, it was Classical Latin that would spreed. By the way, I realized the normal Anglo-saxon accent that finds difficult to express in other languages and, at times, they seemed to have a potatoe in their mouth. Eheh. Latin was speed in the western part of the Empire and became a native language! In the east, Greek became the native language, that doesnt mean that the Roman soldiers would speak Greek in there. About the "i" sound, I think is somewhat correct in the "AE" e.g. "INSTITVTAE" (read as instituti). But the C+e no way!
 * By the way, when I was watching the movie, people spoak a language that a guy like me doesnt understand (aramaic), and a roman solders says: "Idiota" That astonishes everyone, because is the sound is the same as in Portuguese and some many other words where too. It is a good movie for educational issues, to people realize where their language came from. Altought, I believe everyone, knows who the Romans where, and their importance. I'll try to investigate on this thing. Nevertheless, It's a good movie and reliable. Its is spoken in the real languages, it as an human factor, etc. That's Excelent. And unexpectly, is from Hollywood. By the way, I'm not catholic, I was raised as one (intensibly), but changed my position (tought I like catholic parties, we have a lot and they are great) but I think that the Jew observations that where made when the movie was launched as very sad and dangerous to democracy and freedom.Pedro 11:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Their Italian accents were ridiculous and spoilt the film.   &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 10:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Language rumour redux
Ed's proposed wording is good; by all means cite the varying opinions on the language spoken by the Roman soldiers, preferably with a note that the question is not at all settled and probably never will be. Here's some relevant background:

First, the garrison in neighbouring Syria, which was the center of Roman power in the area, was made up of four crack regular legions: III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, and XII Fulminata. Had Pilate's soldiers belonged to any of these legions, they would have spoken Latin; since the Roman governor in Judaea was subordinate to the legate in Syria, his soldiers may well have been detachments of the Syrian garrison. The relevant passage of Josephus says that they carried Caesar's standards, which hints that they were part of a regular legion; auxiliary legions often (but not always) retained their native arms, clothing, insignias, etc.

Had Pilate's troops been non-Roman auxiliaries, which is also possible, they might have spoken either Greek or Latin amongst themselves: both were common enough among auxiliary troops. The officers would have been Latin-speaking Roman citizens in any case.

A third and quite plausible possibility, as pointed out by Slrubenstein below, is that both guesses are correct; the Romans spoke Latin amongst themselves and Greek to others. Pilate himself certainly knew and used both languages; his coins are marked in Greek, while stones from his buildings are inscribed in Latin.

In any case, I'm not aware of any conclusive evidence -- barracks graffiti, military payrolls, battle standards, written descriptions, etc. -- to which one could point as irrefutable proof. It seems that only nitpicking historians (like me) and people with axes to grind really care which language the soldiers spoke. HTH, and let me know if there are any other questions about this issue.

(If anyone can figure out how to trim the above into a few sentences and integrate it in the proper section of the article, I would be most grateful. :-) --67.71.76.166 14:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If Mel hired a decent linguist (and why wouldn't he) then it seems likely that the Latin-speaking at least represents a reputable viewpoint. My understanding (based on Paul Maier) was that Reomans would indeed have spoken Latin to each other - but that 'Roman' soldiers, especially the lower ranks, might well have been auxiliaries recruited from the outlying parts of the Empire, and thus not speak Latin. DJ Clayworth 14:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greek and soldiers
From what i know of my readings, and after consulting my father (a retired Latin and Greek Prof), i can tell you that i dont think that the majority of the soldiers spoke greek. That is true for the late Roman army, when soldiers were mostly already non Roman (ie from Romanized provinces). In the 30s the Empire was just starting so most of the legionaries were Italian born. So: except for the auxiliary troops (mostly gaul and lybian at the time) the troops would speak Latin amongst themselves. As for the possibility of speaking in Greek to the others, not very peobable, because greek was common for a Roman to know, but an upper class Roman. Maybe the officers, but i dont think regular troops. Muriel 16:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Details not in the Gospels
As part of the relentless campaign to discredit the movie for supposed "historical inaccuracies", someone created a dozen "not in the Gospels" bullet points and only 4 or 5 "yes this is right" points. It's actually the other way around. There are hundreds of details Mel Gibson copied exactly from the Gospel accounts. Far too numerous too mention. Why the one-sided comparison?


 * Possibly because the gospels, reading aloud, word for word, of the same events, takes less than 20 minutes. Which doesn't make for a great movie. Great movies require visual invention, symbolism, and doing such things as taking a single line of text (he was whipped) and turning it into a gore-fest of spraying blood, laughing guards, and ripping flesh.


 * Possibly because the gospels leave out so much detail that depiction mandates invention. What clothes did they wear (what's with the cotton?)? What happened in day or night? What did bread look like? What's the deal with the lips of Judas? What's with the dead animal near Judas in the movie? Did Judas die of self hanging or spontaneous gut explosion?


 * Why is so much of MMLJ left out (sins be upon us, rooster crow outside the inner temple walls, temple viel splitting)? Perhaps that could be a good section to add. Or, you could add to (or create) an accuracies section.


 * I'd make a rough estimate that 90% of the movie running time is modern invention, maybe 10% is in the gospels. So folks interested in the gospels start to note the inventions, and make comments. Ronabop 09:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene?

 * Mary Magdalene is portrayed as the "woman taken in adultery" about to be stoned by a group of Jews who were then dissuaded by Jesus' famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" statement. In the Gospels this woman is unnamed.

Article should mention that, traditionally, many Christians have identified the woman Jesus saved from stoning, as Mary Magdalene. The text above makes it sound like Gibson simply made this up out of his own head: it's not in the Gospels, so the movie must be wrong, eh?

--Uncle Ed 21:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that Roman soldiers and officials, like Pilate, would have spoen Latin among themselves. But they probably used Greek to speek to the Jews and gentiles living in Judea, who almost certainly did not speak Latin. In The Passion, what language do Romans use when speaking to Jews? Slrubenstein


 * The only Hebrew word I know is shalom, and I didn't hear it spoken in the movie. I heard one Roman soldier call another an "idiot" in Latin, though. If you can bear the emotional strain of seeing the movie yourself, there's a scene where a Roman soldier orders a bystander to help Jesus carry the cross; I wonder what language that conversation was conducted in. Maybe Aramaic?


 * One thing this movie might do is arouse general interest in the history of Israel of that period. --Uncle Ed 13:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe. What it did for me was inspire interest the way Traditionalist Catholic charities compare with the Islamic charities implicated in funding terrorism. What I found was Gibson buddied up with a bunch of Knightly Orders that quitely funnel money into radical organizations including anti-abortion terrorists and neo nazi organizations. The feds evidence for seizing funds of Islamic charities is no stronger than evidence that traditionlist catholics have been involved with right-wing terrorists in the United States. Gibson's 10 minute scourging bothered me none at all. I figure he deserved it. DontMessWithThis 14:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * (Watching intently for a twitch in the corner of DMWT's mouth) Catholic terrorists? Y'all are putting us on, right? Pollinator 16:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. We have identified traditional Catholic connections to most of the non-environmentalist domestic terrorism events of the 1990s, including the clinic murders, the clinic bombings and the Oklahoma City bombing. From the Maltese passports of 1945 to the anti-abortion terrorism of today, some proponents of traditional Catholicism have placed their caring hand in the lap of several terrorist organizations. The Chevaliers de Notre Dame (de Sion) deliver secret funding to anti-abortion groups, Bishop Richard Williamson was quite overt in his support for neo-Nazis, and Fr. Juan Fernandez Krohn tried to stab the pope in a religiously motivated assassination attempt. Radical traditional Catholics cross pollinate with members of the protestant Christian Identity movement to provide counsel and refuge for those who attack abortion providers.


 * DMWT, don't stretch too hard to pull facts to your agenda-- somethin's gonna snap, you might injure yourself. In the last 100+ years the greatest perpetrators of murder and atrocity have belonged to one of two camps: 1) The Hitler/Stalin school of areligious 'beyond good and evil' despotism, and 2) The Bin Laden Islamist school of "Let's blow up everybody in the world who's not down with Shar'ia law'. Hitler and Stalin despised Christianity, Bin Laden despises Christians. Any unprovoked, unjustified aggression carried out by your "Catholic terrorists" is approximately a teaspoon to the ocean of what these non-Christian freakazoids have done. Some earlier epochs in the moral history of the churches weren't too grand, but the last century has been one of the most morally unimpeachable runs of any culture of any time. JDG 20:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should read up on your history. If I do the maths the muslim extremists by far haven't aggressed as much as the free world did in countries such as Vietnam, Nicaragua and Iraq. Or would you place Nixon and Bush I and II in the first camp? Gu@k@ 14:03, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If I had more direct evidence I would make it into an article. Both Moslem and Catholic clerics provide spiritual direction and funding for terrorists but keep their hands clean by avoiding participation in tactical planning of terrorist acts. But the evidence against some sects of traditional Catholics is no less direct than the evidence against Moslem charities. Evidence suggests the government went with a lone-bomber case in Oklahoma City because to develop one more investigative thread would have led investigators straight to the crossroads where Christian Identity believers and radical traditional Catholics cross paths. DontMessWithThis 17:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've just read nice critic by rabin Lapin, who asked, why accuse Gibson about anti-semitism, when the same people when ignoring catholics when they feeel offended by movies ("The priest" etc) directed by Jewish directors/produced or distributed by Jewish distributors/producers? Kind a double morality, isn't it? Or freedom of speach and artistic expression is only limited to anti-catholic rants? Szopen