Talk:The Passion of the Christ/Archive 2

Quick question
Why is there no discussion page for Talk:The Passion? Because the The Passion page needs to be fixed (duplicates a lot of content in Passion (disambiguation).

Name of Mary in the article
Sometimes she's "Mary", sometimes she's "The Blessed Virgin", and sometimes she's "The Virgin Mary." Inconsistency isn't good. The name of the character in the movie is "Mary" and this is how she should be referred to in the article. Mel Gibson, as Catholic, probably personally believes that she was a virgin for life, but the Bible and the Movie never say this, so there's no reason to keep calling the character "The Blessed Virgin" any more there is to say "Jesus Christ, Son of God" every single time instead of just "Jesus." Statalyzer (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Snuff film?
The first paragraph characterises this as a snuff film, which it is not. A snuff film is "a film that depicts the killing of a human being (without the aid of special effects or other trickery)" and this film does not kill anyone during filming. The death of Christ was depicted with special effects, and therefore this is no more a snuff film than any other film that depicts graphic deaths. Ubergenius 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Details Not Found in the Gospels" section
I started this section and just revisited it, reinserting a few things that had been deleted by others and tightening up some wording. An unknown user above says "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?" I think it's obvious that the majority of details will be from the Gospels, since they are the main source for the entire story. At the same time, it is particularly relevant to show where Gibson diverged from the sources. Gibson's convictions have been the object of intense debate and these details that come more from him than from ancient authorities can give a good window into his thinking... I restored the point on Mary Magdelene with better caveats. I also restored the point about the severity of the scourging. It was deleted by someone who merely said "Romans were known to do this"-- but that of course does not prove they did it in this case. JDG 19:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. Considering that its supposed accuracy to the Gospels was part of its marketing, noting points it diverges on is entirely relevant - David Gerard 19:32, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Christian, and specifically Roman Catholic leaders' (as opposed to Arian Christians) political alliances with Roman and other leaders during the dark ages was far more sinister than that of the Jewish religious leaders 1st Century occupied Isreal of the first century.


 * What are "Aryan Christians"?


 * That's Arian Christians. See Arianism.

Jewish religious leaders of the occupied 1st Century capitol did hand Jesus over the the Romans, but that is nearly identical the the Catholic Inquisition act committed many times over when victims were "surrendered to the secular arm so their soul may be saved" i.e. handed over to civilian authorities for execution, often on a burning pier.

It is also worth noting that Mel Gibson believes the Sept. 11 attacks to have been remote controlled aircraft under command of the same Jewish plot his father alleges conspired with Freemasons to inspire Vatican II.

KenKong77 response: Really? He does? I must have missed that one. I think you're (a) referring to Gibson's crazed dad, and/or (b) reading National Enquirer too much (or, rather, reading it at all).

And the ADL on Gibson: "[Gibson's] got classical anti-Semitic views. If he can say that there is a cabal out there of secular liberal Jews who are trying to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church, that's a classic anti-Semitic canard -- that Jews operate in cabals to get their way." (Abraham H. Foxman on CNSNews)

Mel Gibson on "New World Order" conspiracy: "Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it's Marxism, but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don't admit to it. Do it by stealth."


 * In the timeline of this, the soldiers should have dressed him in purple and mocked him. Did this happen in the film? 66.41.66.213 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Criminal punishment in context
Perhaps this article needs to put this man's crimes in context. Gibson is portraying a disorderly subversive from history as if he were some sort of world savior.

Wasn't flogging a routine punishment in those days for disorderly conduct? It seems fair - this Jesus character had been weilding a whip a few days earlier in the Temple when the nice merchants were just trying to help the people make sacrificial offerings during their annual religious celebration.

That part of the film and of Gibson's claims just don't make sense to me. How am I supposed to be responsible for this guy's outburst at a Jewish temple some 2,000 years ago? If he was blessed by some divine providence, why can't I just go down to my local Christian curio shop and start turning over tables and whipping the owner?

Then their court had to decide if flogging for disorderly was sufficient or if there had been treason. By prevailing US standards of this time, if he fought against the nation, it would be treason and he could be executed. His acts were found to be sufficiently treasonous to warrant execution. Again, how does that implicate me? The article might do well to explain how the film's plot is based on a premise that holds individuals today responsible for the behavior of a deposed monarch some 2,000 years ago.

The propaganda message of this film is the premise that he died for my sins and not for his own crimes. --eek!--A Mouse! 00:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this sarcasm? I mean, if you want to say "there never was a Jesus", you can say that, but if you've read the gospels at all, the one thing I don't think you can reasonably do is accept that they accurately depict Jesus and then say "yeah, he deserved to die".  This is off-topic, I guess, but I am honestly baffled by the above.  He claimed to be someone--you can decide for yourself if he claimed to be God or only the Messiah--not to be designing an overthrow or a revolution.  You don't have to take him as your God, but I think suggesting that he was a treasonous assailant who deserved death is only going to make enemies here needlessly.  I sure don't understand the above, anyway. Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No it is not sarcasm. He vandalized a religous site on a religous holiday. One didn't have to crash an aircraft into a tower in those days to commit treason, one mereley had to have the capacity to stir a crowd against forces armed with nothing but swords and spears.


 * The gospels were written by his followers, and even they described his activities as vandalism. What are the Pharisees supposed to do, say "oh, this vandal is okay, he is the Son of God." His tirade in the temple, no matter how much your preacher likes it, was a disorderly disruptive act. Gibson and the fundraising preachers would have us believe he was put on trial for his collective teachings. He was tried for stirring sedition in Jeruselum during a religious holiday, when seditious rallies stood a chance of swelling and overpowering Roman occupiers.


 * He was convicted under the laws of his time and was legally executed. It is not a matter of "yeh, he deserved to die." It is a matter in which treasonous people were routinely executed at that time and if a person acts like that in an environment like that, they are pretty much asking to be executed, which he plainly was. He intended to force his execution, by the way the story was told to me and by my read of the text. ---eek! A Mouse! 06:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I could add a comment. As we are using the Bible as a historical source here, I would indeed remind of what is told about Pilate. The Roman author was trying to save Jesus, not execute. Seconly, Jesus was not accused of harassing the temple merchants, but instead of claiming to be a king. And what comes to the Jewish leaders, their hatred and suspicion towards Jesus had far longer background than just the incident in the temple, and also they did consider the politics more widely (John 11:48) (Comment added 16 Nov 2005 00:18 UTC)

Mr. User ---eek! A Mouse! : if you find the depiction of Passion and death of Jesus of Nazareth so offensive, I have a simple solution for you - cover your eyes, or leave the theater. Walk away. Nobody is forcing you to see it, nobody wants you to see it. It is a movie that depicts an historical fact, at least in the opinion of 2 billion people on earth.

If it is your opinion that he was a vandal, a criminal who deserved to be flogged, then that's your opinion. Fine. No one is holding you personally responsible for his death, unless somehow you have a misguided persecution complex, or you are a psychopath, or both. Your reasoning, however skewed, put you against Him, making you an antichrist (note: small "a"; plenty of those everywhere). You're a tiny man making tiny comments about God, but then again, who cares? Intellectual atheists are a dime a dozen, and in the end your opinions only matter to Satan, who owns you. Then again, that just MY opinion. MAguero(Comment added 5 October 2007 00:07 EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.190.129 (talk • contribs)

Flame bait and trolling
After a short review I can confidently describe 90% of this page as flame bait and trolling. I suggest you look elsewhere for intelligible or polite discourse. Sam Spade


 * I find your comments equally meaningless, and likewise condemn your motivation. DontMessWithThis 05:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. Jesus was without sin. Believe it and you shall live. Believe it not, and you shall die.


 * Please see Pascal's Wager. Oh, and even if you believe in it, you're still gonna die. Sorry about that, please contact the head office if you wish to register complaints about the whole "people always die" thing. Ronabop 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "If there is a God, surely He is contemptuous of Christians, those who claim to know Him through a litany of dogma, who unscrupulously utter His name in the most mundane of circumstances, who believe living lackluster lives will earn them His eternal praise. Then I will take the foolproof position of believing in no God. If I am correct then there is no harm done. And if I am wrong then I will be rewarded for my independence and for living a natural and entertaining life". MotherFunctor 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. User: MotherFunctor: First, your comments don't relate at all to the issue at hand being discussed. How do you know God's mind as far as Christians are concerned? Has he told you so?The truth is that it's you, and not God, that holds Christians in contempt, for whatever personal reason. You are entitled to an opinion but please, in the name intellectual honesty, don't put your words in God's mouth.

Second, you put yourself as more wise and knowing than Pascal, one of the greatest intellectuals and logistans in western civilization. Even Albert Einstein considered Pascal's Wager one of the clearest probabilities ever presented, yet yours, in your own mind, is greater. I guess wer're all entitled to our private opinions. MAguero 13:50, 22 October 2007(UTC)


 * 'Elle [la nation juive] ose étaler une haine irréconciliable contre toutes les nations; elle se révolte contre tous ses maîtres. Toujours superstitieuse, toujours avide du bien d’autrui, toujours barbare, rampante dans le malheur, et insolente dans la prospérité.'

-- Voltaire

Details in the film present in the Gospels

 * Peter cuts off the ear of a man, when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus; and Jesus heals that man.
 * After his arrest and delivery to the Temple, Jesus is slapped, punched and spat upon in the presence of the Sanhedrin before any trial is held. Both Matthew and Mark relate this.
 * Pilate is reluctant to condemn Jesus to death. The Gospels unmistakably hint at this reluctance.


 * Apathy or ambivilance is not the same as reluctance. Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The Last Supper is shown in the theologically right moment with the consecration Words of Jesus: "This is My Body, which is given up for you ...", so that it is clearly the first Mass advancing and representing the Sacrifice of Jesus next day (Good Friday).
 * Mass is in the Gospels? Good friday is in the gospels? Where are those terms? Are religions which don't have Mass or Good Friday not gospel based? (Wikipedia has protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses...)Ronabop 06:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The seven words of Jesus on the cross, also entrusting holy Mary to John's care: "Woman, this is your son ! John, this is your mother!"


 * Uh, what translation are you using that indicates *John*? Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Removed this again. Please, give me a citation before putting it back in. Ronabop 06:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Arrgh! John 19:26-27 never specifies John as the referenced apostle, period. Here's a sampling of the translations to peruse through, note that John is not specifically mentioned.


 * New american standard: When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.


 * American standard: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home].


 * Basic english bible: So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple who was dear to him, he said to his mother, Mother, there is your son! Then he said to the disciple, There is your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her to his house.


 * Darby Version: Jesus therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then he says unto the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.


 * Douay Rheims: When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.


 * King James: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].


 * Websters: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.


 * World english: Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour, the disciple took her to his own home.


 * Weymouth NT: So Jesus, seeing His mother, and seeing the disciple whom He loved standing near, said to His mother, "Behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that time the disciple received her into his own home.


 * Young's literal: Jesus, therefore, having seen [his] mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he was loving, he saith to his mother, 'Woman, lo, thy son;' afterward he saith to the disciple, 'Lo, thy mother;' and from that hour the disciple took her to his own [home].


 * Sure, it may be a religious tradition, but it's not in the gospels. Ronabop 02:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Details that are not present" section
Having this section, which is much shorter than the "details that are not present" section, is misleading. It gives the impression that Gibson based his movie more on Catherine than on the Gospels. Either show all of the hundreds of accurately depicted details, or none.

If I were to list from memory each of the film details which corresponded to a line of Gospel text, I bet I could come up with several dozen bullet items, like:
 * Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night.


 * Luke has him on the mount of olives when judas arrives, no day or night, but speaking to a crowd... the movie has him relatively solo. Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The Garden of Gethsemane is on a slope of the Mount of Olives (yes, present tense: it's still there). JDG 20:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Jesus asks his three chief followers, Peter, James and John to "watch" (i.e., stay awake) while he prays.
 * Jesus chides them for falling asleep instead.
 * Soldiers come to arrest Jesus there.
 * Judas identifies Jesus to the soldiers, by kissing his cheek (a pre-arranged signal).


 * Not according to MMLJ. Kiss is common, but cheek is not....


 * Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of violating their religious tradition.
 * The leaders bring Jesus to Pilate for punishment.
 * Pilate finds no "cause" to put Jesus to death.
 * Pilate offers the crowd a choice: release Jesus, or release another condemned prisoner in Jesus's place.
 * Jesus is not merely tied to the cross, but nailed to it.
 * Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, welcomed with palm leaves by the crowds.
 * Jesus had worked as a carpenter.
 * Jesus told Peter to his face, "Three times you will deny me." On the night of the Passion, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.
 * Two thieves were crucified next to Jesus -- on the right and the left.
 * The thief on the left criticized Jesus.
 * The thief on the right confessed his own guilt, called Jesus blameless and asked Jesus to remember him.
 * Jesus told the thief on the right, "Surely this day you will be with me in Paradise."
 * The crucifixion took place on the top of a hill.
 * The curtain in the temple was ripped (by unseen causes) after the crucifixion.

I could go on and on... --Uncle Ed 13:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, you could, but the books themselves have inconsistencies. Anything missing from one account brings into question the accuracy of another account. When accounts contradict each other (denial 3x... when, how, and where?) as far as details go, asserting one as truth denies the others. Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And people tend to "remember" things from the Gospels that aren't there (like which thief was on the right or left (not specified); like being "nailed" (not specified in the Gospels and only figuratively implied elsewhere). And tend to forget other things (both thieves mocked Christ in Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32, while only one does in Luke 23:43) -Nunh-huh 19:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Script and the topic of the movie
It is easy to generally form a script to conform to a single document, then to focus debate on the coherence of the script to the document, avoiding larger questions of the coherence of the documented mythology to the actual events.

In the case of this man, debate among Christians universally steers away from his guilt under the laws of the land where he lived. Execution of temple theives was fundamental precept of law in that region, having been "written in stone" some 1500 years earlier. While Babalonyian law did not prevail in Roman occupied Jeruselum, it does offer context for legal traditions of that time, with many edicts of the Messpotanian Code Of Hammurabi incorporated in Jewish law, such as the requirement for execution of false witnesses. Investigation might reveal Jewish law was influenced by time Jewish people spent as subjects of Babylon. More specifically to the matter of Jesus Christ's disorderly conduct in the main Jewish Temple during the main Jewish holiday, if his damage to merchant's property were considered a form of theft (deprivation of property) he would be executed under the anciet Babylonian Code of Laws. "If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death."

Even though he did not live under Bablylonian law, Jesus' threats to destroy the temple followed by actual attacks within the temple would seem to have had a very Babylonian ring to a people whose temple was last destroyed by Babylon at the onset of Jewish subjegation and removal under Babylonian law. That, to me, is the flaw of this supposedly historical film - it frames the debate squarely within the context of Christianized history and omits essential context that would allow a sympathetic appreciation of those portrayed as antagonists. DontMessWithThis 15:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mary's pebbles
Mary grasps and picks up pea sized pebbles, and drops walnut sized rocks. Anybody know if this is a film editing issue, or intentional?


 * I thought it was far too blatant to be unintentional. Keep in mind that the movie was supposed to be released without subtitles, so visual continuity was paramount. Ronabop 10:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Judas Suicide is in Gospels
Hey 152.163.252.98, why do you keep changing the "Details in the film not present in the Gospels" point about Judas? You keep changing "The Gospels merely state that Judas fell into great mental pain and comitted suicide" to "The Gospels merely imply...". They don't imply, they state. Matthew 27-5: "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."...


 * Well, that's only in translations of Matthew, a (one) gospel. Note the omission of such a statement in the other 3 Gospels, (which seems odd, if it is an item of magnitude)... Or just compare translations. Young's literal translation, for example, is "and having cast down the silverlings in the sanctuary, he departed, and having gone away, he did strangle himself." While I'm not 152.163.252.98, I can see the point (did he tie a rope around his throat, onto a wild horse, and spook the horse, did he fall down while grieving, and crush his windpipe?) . Also, compare with Acts (1:18, for example) and other accounts of him keeping the money, to buy a field. (Acts is certainly not in the Gospels, but maybe the section should be renamed, or another section should be added for "Details contradicted in the rest of the new testament", or "Details of the Film and Scriptual Debate"). Ronabop 08:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You also keep insisting the personification of Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane is "theologically accurate"-- theologically accurate or not, nothing like it is in the Gospels and that is what this section is about. The phrase "some believe this is in the spirit of the scriptures" already covers your point.JDG 07:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your saying that it is nowhere in the Gospels leads one to believe that it is something Gibsom pulled out of his ass; hence the additional words as to the orthodoxy of the imagery. (BTW, you keep insisting that Jesus's shoulder was dislocated, but no doctor was shown making that diagnosis in the film. One sees a Roman guard pulling hard on his arm to line up his hand with the nail hole, and that's it.)


 * I guess you missed the deafening crack that accompanied the rope pulling. JDG

If we're going to post all the the things about how people reacted negatively to this movie, are we going to post the fact that the movie may have caused a murderer to confess? Just wondering... :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:35, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * ==Just curious==**

If you read the bible enough you will note that when he thruw the money back at the priests, they took it and bought the potters field and the reason they bought it was to bury people. So what acts is sayin is that Judas purchased the field by giving it back to the priests and that was the place where he hung himself and his bowels burst asunder Mathew 27:5-7, Acts 1:18 Probabel location Valley of Hinnom

Rearrange?
Three of the 10 "reaction" sub-sections are about the anti-Semitism controversy. I propose forming a new section entitled "Anti-Semitism". --Uncle Ed 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right, the article does ramble somewhat--more hierarchy in the sections would help. Opus33 15:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Venerable?
Is it POV to say "venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich"? I know Catholics venerate her, but I'm presuming the rest do not.

dictionary.com gives these two definitions for "venerable":
 * Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position.
 * Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.

I suppose she might be venerable by the first definition, but in context it would seem the second is intended. I would say even the first is POV; who decided she commanded respect? and/or Who decided she was worthy of reverence? Jdavidb 13:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * She was, by a Roman Catholic decree of 24 April 2001, awarded the degree of heroic virtue (Decretum super virtutibus), with which she has been granted by Church practice the title "Venerable". Using the term to refer to her doesn't seem to be much more "POV" than use of the term "Reverend" for those given titles by other denominations, but if you feel you want to attribute it, you now have the needed information. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Receiving an honorific title from the RCC does not justify using it here, which BTW, would mean that is is to be capitalized. The use of honorifics and beatifics is anachronistic; when was the last time any of us saw a saint's name used with his/her honorific title in common usage? In addition, non-RCCs are unfamiliar with the idea and use of honorific or beatific titles. It's use here is confusing, uncommon, and very outdated. --FM 06:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * A compromise would be to somehow mention the fact that she was bestowed that degree.

Removed a 'letter to the editor', signed but with no context. DJ Clayworth 20:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To User JDavidb: The Catholic Church gave Ann Emmerich the title of "venerable". That's just a formality given to people whose names have been put forth for the process of cannonization (i.e. to be made a "saint" - which is merely an affirmation that the person IS in the Heavenly presence of God). The process may move on, or she may remain a "venerable" forever. The factors that determine these things are many. By being venerable, a holy card of her can be made, public petitions can be asked of her for intercession, etc., and a bunch of other "Catholic" things. Mr. FeloniusMonk, since when have honorifics and beatifics become anachronisms? In your opinion perhaps, but not the existing Catholic one. The Church continues to bestow these titles to all en route to the cannonization process. It's not "outdated", unless you are of those "Catholics" that also believe prayer, the Vulgate and the Real Presence are also "outdated". MAguero 00:25, 5 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.190.129 (talk)

A Train Wreck?
I remember seeing this film back when it first came out. When asked to describe the film, the best I way I could describe the film was that it was kind of like watching a train wreck. I couldn't bear to watch Christ getting the life beaten out of him, but at the same time I couldn't turn away. It was so violent, that on Feb 27th of this year Mark Savlov of the Austin Chronicle said that it almost became "The Greatest Snuff Film Ever Made." That's probably an accurate way to describe this film.

One thing that I fear traditional Catholics focus on to almost the exclusion of everything else is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As the Nicene Creed says: "He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried." But it seems to me that some Catholics have forgotten that what follows is "And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures."


 * JesseG 01:35, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * In the two year celebration of your comments, let me say that your movie review is better placed in IMDB. Only comments helpful in improving this article are appropriate here. Nothing you have stated is useful. Jtpaladin 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Heart attacks
If you consider how many people have seen the film and what the population average rate of heart attack is, you will find that quite a few people can be expected to have died during the movie just by chance. So listing two of them is rather pointless and says nothing at all about the movie. --Zero 14:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph about the apostolic tradition
I moved this paragraph from the article here to Talk. It seems to me that this article isn't about Catholic theology and the apostolic tradition. Rather, the material below would be better for a new article on the many, many movies and plays based on the New Testament, and how Christians approach such films and plays in general. RK 22:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Without touching the question of the veracity of her descriptions, for Traditionalist Catholics like Gibson it is not necessary to have all details of the film in the Bible because the final revelation of God is taken from both the Bible and the oral Apostolic Tradition (till the death of the last Apostle). The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, however, are not considered part of the oral Apostolic Tradition and aren't something that Catholics must accept as true lest they be outside the faith; Catholics are free to accept or not accept her visions. Details beyond primary textual sources are to be expected in dramatizations of historical events, but the trend and tenor of non-source material can assist in understanding the general tendencies of the creators.


 * Catholics refer to such teachings as "worth of belief." Similar to the vision at Fatima.

way too long
i'm sorry but i really think that the article is wayyyyyy too long and convoluted. visually, the meat should be at the beginning and the rest of the crap that runs throughout should be visually separated nicely. just an opinion from a newbie.

I agree. It is way too long. Perhaps it should be split, along the lines of the Differeces being Given their own Article? Manhatten Project 2000 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not too long. Jtpaladin 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Navarro Valls' [sic]s
The first [sic] (after "Mons.") is probably unnecessary. Within the Catholic Church, all bishops have the title Monsignor as well. Admittedly, in English, we usually use "Bishop" rather than Monsignor, but this is a Spaniard speaking here. Were the comments made in English or Spanish? -- Mpolo 07:03, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Details not in the gospel
It would be nice to come up with the sources for each of these -- which are from Emmerich, which are from Mel, and so on. Any experts there? -- Mpolo 07:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, ask, and ye shall recieve? :) Ronabop 13:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The flipping cross
I watched it again tonight, and the "floating cross above the ground" after the cross is flipped over seems to be met with astonishment by Mary of Magdala, with nobody else noticing... have others noticed this curious occurance? Ronabop 13:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Violence
Why wasn't there a section about violence in the film. I thought the main contention against the film was violence, not anti-Semitism. Mandel 12:11, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think a violence section is well worth including as there is a lot of interesting issues there. Personally, I have always thought the anti-semitism issue was really blown out of proportion in comparison to the wider issues surronding the movie but I think it is fair to say that in the US at least and also countries like France & Germany, the anti-semitism issue was the one which gained the most publicity. However, I don't believe this was as true in other countries such as the UK, Aus & NZ. Although I did try to make this point, it was somewhat poorly written and was reverted (along with at least one change which should not have been reverted IMHO). I may do a bit more research on this issue in the future and try to include it with evidence but it would be good if someone else could do it. -anon


 * Violence section added. Tempshill 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review
I've just come from the peer review board. I'm glad to see this article is in good shape. I've written the articles on Aramaic language and begun the Aramaic of Jesus. Seeing as language is an important feature of the film, would you like a few sentences about the languages of Jesus' context and their representation in the film? Gareth Hughes 16:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the claim that "Catholics identify the woman taken in adultery with Mary Magdalen" as this was already discussed and not found to be true. DJ Clayworth 07:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of MacDonald material
I took the liberty of removing the following material:


 * Dr. Kevin B. MacDonald, a psychology professor, theorizes that elements of the Jewish community act collectively against perceived threats to the welfare of Jews. In accordance with that theory, it is possible that criticism of the movie was a part of a group evolutionary strategy by the Jews in order to minimize that perceived threat.

"It is possible" based on the highly unorthodox (pardon the pun) views of one controversial psychologist that those opposed to this film were acting out of some sort of evolutionary strategy? Well, if you want to argue that, go right ahead, but leave your original research off wikipedia. This is just part of the campaign being waged here to get MacDonald's writings included in every article that has anything to do with Jewish people.Zantastik 03:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes of mine
I have made some recent changes which I feel clarify some issues. My most significant changes are the ones on the movies performance outside. I think it is fair to say that the movie did not anywhere nearly as good as it did in the US in most other countries. This section is now quite lengthy with a lot of external links but I think if we want to include something on the movies performance, we should look at it's performance as a whole not just in the US and world-wide.

I also made added something about violence in the movie. I feel it would be better in a violence subsection but as there is none I included it where I felt it's most appropriate. If you don't agree, please move it somewhere else but please do not delete it without at least explaining here why. I recognise I only provided evidence for one country but I'm quite sure this happened in other countries as well. If someone could provide links that would be great. I know some of you may feel that it's not worth including but I feel it is quite an item of significance since it relates to the way the movie is regarded by some to be a unique movie worthy of special treatment.


 * It is excessively "politically correct"(Any "political correctness" is excessive).


 * I just added a section on "criticism over graphic violence" with quotes from a couple of prominent critics and Gibson's statement on it. Tempshill 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

deletion
When someone points out stereotypes of Jews in the film (or anywhere), it's not a sensible response to say that Jews such as Jesus and his supporters are not portrayed as stereotypes. By that reasoning there is no such thing as stereotyping of Jews by Christians at all, since even the most fanatical Christian would never show Jesus as a greedy banker with a hook nose.

Stereotypes of Jews have always exempted important Christian figures who were Jewish by birth. Ken Arromdee 15:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, it is a defense used by supporters (and, more importantly, the film-makers) and therefore belongs in the article. People may weigh it as they see fit. JG of Borg 17:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Details in the film not present in the New Testament
The "Details in the film not present in the New Testament" section is way, way overlong and detailed for an encyclopedia article about a movie. IMO the section should be moved to its own article and linked to from here, with a couple of paragraphs summarizing. The list really breaks up the article narrative. Tempshill 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Principles in the gospel : Jesus came for a mission, not for gore
One big problem with such historical films is that they show 'how' and don't tell 'why'. Is this discussion relevant here, I can't tell.

Jesus came to save his brethren. That he must suffer and die makes all the story for some. The suffering show was neither the mission, nor the message : love was.

The PotC article itself is not so bad but chaotic. As others said, would someone mingle article and comments, then create a 'just a film' article, a veracity of the details article, and so on. My remarks will be a stub for a 'What are we doing with beautiful myths : show and terror and money' article. Or let's devise a : 'Brother, thy saviour suffered not in vain, go and do the same with your meagre strength'. That's Peer review. Harvestman 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've heard this criticism before..."Why was Mel so obsessed with the violence and not the message of love?" My guess is that a vast, overwhelming majority of people who saw this film already get the concept of "Jesus died for your sins."  A significant number, if not a majority, of viewers likely didn't know the extent of Jesus's suffering.


 * Sure, Gibson could have made a movie that amounted to a re-telling of a standard Sunday sermon at a standard U.S. church. Not exactly ground-breaking, and not the sort of thing that would get Christians and non-Christians alike talking about the sacrafice Jesus made...at least not with the intensity that followed this film.

Clean Flicks
The last sentence is rather POV, is it not? Can we think of a better version? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The presentation in the Gospels are not unique: How to select
Hello

I would like to add some lines to the paragraph in which it is stated, that ''Gibson intended the movie to be faithful to the New Testament,.. '' There are two problems with that
 * There is no unique narration in the Gospels! To mention the main differences: According to John, Jesus was arrested (Nisan 14) by Jewish Aids of the Sanhedrin, but then was only questioned by Anas and Caiaphas (no trial), while according to the Synoptics, he (Nisan 15) was only arrested by the Jewish Aids, and condemned by the Sanhedrin.
 * now since Gibson does not follow a specific Gospel, but made a certain selection in the material, the question is which selection. The one he chooses seems to magnify the Jewish responsibility and guilt, however there are other choices possible.

Here is a short list:


 * 1) Because Jesus is popular with the people at large, he is arrested clandestinely at night to avoid a riot (Mk. 14:2).
 * 2) Caiaphas fears that a riot could provoke the Romans to destroy the Temple (Jn. 11:48). [N.B. the opposite of the film's claim he could lead a revolt.]
 * 3) Jesus is arrested by Temple guards and Roman soldiers (Jn. 18:3).
 * 4) Jesus is questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to Pilate (Jn.18:19, 24, 28) [No Sanhedrin trial or question of Jesus' divinity].
 * 5) Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Lk 13:1).
 * 6) Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mk. 15:15, as against Jn. 19:1-8 ff.).
 * 7) A great multitude of the people (Lk. 23:27) and all the multitudes (Lk. 23:48) of Jews are sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion.
 * 8) Jesus' execution was done in haste (Mk.15:25; Jn 19:31).

Oub 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC):

exaggerated?
im no medical expert but could it really be possible for any human being or even animal to survive the horrendous torture that jesus suffers as depicted in this film?(no amount of mental strength, mind over matter could block out this level of physical pain)- surely he would have died well before the crucifixion?- which begs the question of whether gibson has grossly exaggeratted the violence inflicted on jesus ? t ali 1/3/06

Roman soldiers were experts at torture. This isn't an issue of physiological fact, nor even of divine intervention; it's simple historical evidence. The Romans dealt out this treatment to many criminals (pilate gives him "mercy" by "only" having him flogged), and though his punishment was unusually bad, it wasn't unprecedented.

They did NOT exxagerate it. In real life it was probably much worse. The Bible says that he was mangled so badly you could barely tell he was a human.-Jedizati 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No he autually had to cut down on the amount of violence Jesus actually recieved to make the R Rating. Jesus actually endured worse that what was shown in this movie.

--Hornetman16 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have skipped the part in the bible where it shows that Jesus is a Man-God. Half man, half God. But that aside, it's my understanding that a human can endure more than that (hostel?).

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an utterly irrelevant point unless you DO find a medical expert who argues that. The talk page here is for improving the articles; since original research is not usable on WP, this discussion seems not to have merit. Epthorn (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

spoiler warning?
it's hardly necessary..

I burst out laughing when I first saw it. It's similar to the joke "don't tell me how it ends" in relation to the Passion, since everyone knows how it ends.
 * I had the same reaction to Titanic. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that everyone knows that Jesus was crusified at the end. But I think some people can enjoy the film more if they do not know in advance, that God lits a big tear and satan screams etc. So I think the spoiler warning does have sense here. -- Pavel Jelinek 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I'm trying to forget what Pavel said because I've never seen it before... :) RN 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

double up
the two sections "Charges of anti-Semitism" and "Controversy about anti-Semitism" mean pretty much the same thing. Not only that, quite a few sentences/paragraphs are repeated in the two sections. What's up with that?

"lay the blame where it belongs" yikes
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-mel-gibson-movie2.htm


 * The link indicates that Gary Giuffre's quote of laying the blame where it belongs was never expounded. If you see the quote from the Council of Trent found in the Controversy about anti-Semitism section you will see that a traditional Catholic opinion is the blame lies with all of mankind.  Remember controversy sells papers.  It would behoove a media corporation(in this case the New York Times) to over-hype a controversy. - Chops79 16:32, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Christ died because man is sinful. According to christian tradition, God's plan of salvation was laid out from the dawn of time, so blaming the jews is really a stupid move on anybody's part. Also, I don't know how to make a new discussion thing or edit the main article properly (being a newbie) but you might want to mention somewhere in there that Jesus was a Jew :)

Why are there two seperate sections about the anti-Semitism?
^^ - Atropos 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Differences from the New Testament"
I glanced over the section entitled "differences from the New Testament", and saw that the extent Jesus' flogging (e.g. Him being wipped with ropes embedded with nails) was listed there. Though the type of scourging He suffered is never mentioned in the Bible, the flagrum, a whip embedded with sharp objects was, I believe, the standard instrument used for such punishment. Though I have not read the article thoroughly, this is one example of how the article seems to be lacking in neutrality. I have therefore placed a POV tag on the article. - Conrad Devonshire 01:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic
--Ben Zakai 08:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)As a Jewish native speaker of Aramaic (my mother's family is from Zakho in North Iraq) i understood the dialogue in the movie to a certain extent but found it very stunted and artifical. I can't tell you the number of times i cringed everytime someone opened their mouth and uttered butchered aramaic. Not a very pleasant experience. Yes, aramaic is still a LIVING SPOKEN language. Many incorrectly believe it is a dead language. IT IS NOT. Why commission one Jesuit priest to "reconstruct" the aramaic dialect of the time and not consult the thousands of Chaldo-Assyrians and Jews from north Iraq who speak aramaic as their mother tongue? I mean you'd think that since Gibson was so adamant about "historical accuracy" he would do a little bit of extra research. But then again, the movie is so replete with inaccuracies i guess it would be too much to expect from him. And the depiction of "poor" Pilate having the ethico-moral dilemma of his life is so horribly and painfully  inaccurate that i have no choice but to laugh Shlama Lokhun oo Marya yibarikhlokhon (peace unto you and g-d bless in aramaic)

You know for a fact that Pilate had no dilemma? Interesting. Statalyzer (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * You might have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic#Modern_Aramaic. It sounds to me that your mother's family speaks a language from the eastern branch of Aramaic. Well I speak German but I am almost unable to understand german 1500 years ago. Languages evolve often at different rates, but I think most scholars agree, that today Aramaic is different from Aramaic spoken in Palestine some 2000 years ago. As I understand it there exist written documents in that language some 300 before and some 200 years after Jesus's life. So some reconstruction had to be done. However I have heard complains similar to yours about the result used in the movie.
 * Oub 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC):

Aramaic continued
Sure aramaic like all languages has changed over time but we have no problems whatsoever reading and understanding the Targums (aramaic translation of Hebrew prayers as well as the Hebrew Bible) which were written over 1,000 years ago. Its definitely different but not so different as to be mutually unintelligible. Nevertheless, i find it highly unfortunate that no effort was done to see how Aramaic is still spoken and in some cases spoken in a way that hasn't changed so drastically--Ben Zakai 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Ben Zakai. I see, that is really surprising that you still understand Aramaic this old. Your critics fits in to what I have heard from other Aramaic speakers (Rabbies). That the pronunciation of Aramaic in that movie is quite bad. Oub 14:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

Shoulder injuries sustained during filming
We mention these in two places, first: "[Caviezel]]...even had his shoulder dislocated at one point during the filming of the scourging scene" and "Caviezel suffered numerous injuries and ailments during the production, including pneumonia and being hit by lightning. He separated his shoulder while filming a scene in which Jesus falls and the cross lands on his back. During the scourging scene, Caviezel was actually whipped twice and still bears scars." So, is it the case that he had two separate shoulder injuries (one during the scourging scene, one during a scene where he falls on his back), or is one a mistake? Also, we could do with citing sources for these facts. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in a third place we say, "Jim Caviezel admitted that he was struck in the back accidentally during the scourging sequence, leaving a significant scar on his back. Apparently one of the actors portraying the Roman Guards was supposed to strike a board on Caviezel’s back to prevent from injuring Caviezel but had missed the mark." We should really have just one place for discussing Caviezel's injuries. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Humbly submitted
I noticed a lot of redundant text and a general lack of organization, so I rearranged things a bit and took out the repetition. Along the way I also removed what sounded like speculation or opinion. All in all, a good article, and I hope my edits don't tick anyone off. Her Pegship 04:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Her Pegship Actually they do. You deleted a part I inserted after some discussion. We might discuss where to put it, but delete it without any discussion I consider almost vandalism. Oub 09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC):
 * I just checked the logs, it is now not clear to me who deleted that part, I just reinserted. If it was not you, I apologise for having accused you of vandalism. Oub 11:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC):
 * Yes, that was me. I removed the paragraphs in question because speculating on how a director might have done it differently is non-encyclopedic and OR. You may notice I kept the paragraph about there being no Passion narrative in the Gospels (moved it up into the "source material" section), as it is relevant to the content of the film. I know there was discussion about this, and I think accusing me of vandalism is out of line. I spent an hour studying and working on the article, not figuring out how to wreck it. Her Pegship 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Her Pegship Hello, I am now confused, I was about to send a reply to your last comment, based on the observation that you deleted the paragraph, in question. Now I see it is back and so most of what I was going to say is pointless. I am of course willing to discuss where to put it (since the article is in some parts not very well organised) and the like, but please, start a discussion before  you make such big changes. Oub 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC):

Inadvertent deletions
On the last edit, someone deleted about half the article rather than a few words. (I hope this was an oops.) I have restored the article to its previous state, so whoever made the oops can go back in and make whatever edits were originally intended. (I have left a message at his/her talk page also.) Cheers, Her Pegship 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoax quotes?
I have removed several uncited quotes (the source given for the section does not contain them) marked as a potential hoax in this edit (diff instead of pasting text so the results don't google), as one of them has denied ever saying it and requested it be removed; unless it can be cited I recommend not reinstating them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ma nishtana halayla haze
Is there any scholarship that the phrase Monica Bellucci utters in the beginning of the movie, taken straight from Hagadah, is, well, from the Hagadah, and no earlier? --VKokielov 03:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actual effects?
There's a lot in here about criticism for anti-Judaism... but did it actually provoke a significant upsurge in anti-Judaism? Brutannica 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DUI and "Charges of Anti Semitism"
Does this have any relevance? It has been slipped in at the end of "Charges of Antisemitism" section. We're discussing the films content throughout - not Gibson and to me it looks like it has been added purely out of spite, undermining any argument regarding the films content. Particularly as the section is still based upon "alleged" statements.


 * [QUOTE]On July 28, 2006, Gibson allegedly uttered anti-Semitic comments when he was arrested for driving under the influence on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California. [36] Although Gibson has apologized for his behavior, Abraham Foxman of the ADL released a statement stating that his apology was "unremorseful and insufficient" and "His tirade finally reveals his true self and shows that his protestations during the debate over his film 'The Passion of the Christ,' that he is such a tolerant, loving person, were a sham." [37][/QUOTE]

I can see its logic (with it mentioning the ADL) but surely this should be under 'his' personal page, not the film unless we're going to start dragging in his fathers entire section also.--Koncorde 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How he could have made the movie...
I removed the following text, as it outlines other possible ways Gibson could have written the script. Besides the fact that 'what-ifs' aren't very encyclopediac, it cites no source and seems like OR. Ashmoo 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Gibson does not follow a specific Gospel, but made a certain selection in the material, the question remains as to which criteria he followed. His selections seem to magnify the Jewish responsibility and guilt; other choices would have led to a significantly different picture:
 * Because Jesus is popular with the people at large, he is arrested clandestinely at night to avoid a riot (Mk. 14:2).
 * Caiaphas fears that a riot could provoke the Romans to destroy the Temple (Jn. 11:48).
 * Jesus is arrested by Temple guards and Roman soldiers (Jn. 18:3).
 * Jesus is questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to Pilate (Jn.18:19, 24, 28)
 * Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Lk 13:1).
 * Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mk. 15:15, as against Jn. 19:1-8 ff.).
 * A great multitude of the people" (Lk. 23:27) and "all the multitudes" (Lk. 23:48) of Jews are sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion.
 * Jesus' execution was done in haste (Mk.15:25; Jn 19:31).

I agree with that change. It's sort of stupid. Augustulus 00:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Flogging in "Differences from the New Testament"
I removed the following text from the thirteenth bullet point (the one beginning "During the scourging scene. . ."):

"though they [the Gospels] do state that Christ was 'almost unrecognizable' after that day."

No textual support is given for this statement, and neither the phrase "almost unrecognizable" nor anything akin to it appears in any of the four Gospels' account of the Cruxifixion and its aftermath. I must respectfully disagree with user Jedizati, who wrote on this discussion board that "The Bible says that he was mangled so badly you could barely tell he was a human." (27 March 2006). There are only three references to the flogging of Jesus in the Gospels (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1 -- I added these cites to the article), and none of them makes any reference to the severity of the punishment. Diogenes777 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Diogenes777

It isn't really mentioned in the NT, but it is mentioned in prophecies in the Old Testament, mainly Isaiah. KCMODevin:KCMODevin 1:00 14 September 2006

Differences from New Testament (scourging/flogging)
This particular line needs to be fixed:

"During the scourging scene Jesus is nearly flayed alive, back and front, by a variety of torture implements, some with embedded shells, glass and nails. The Gospels state only that he was scourged (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1). "

This should be changed, as that is what flogging/scourging was in the Roman Empire. They used two of the most common tools, the first one you saw for lesser punishments... And the second you saw is a cat of nine tails, used for more severe punishments or for those to be executed.

From flagellation: In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would be made to approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood.

cat o' nine tails

KCMODevin 0:57 September 14, 2006

Capitalization
I note that the summary of the article uses both 'he' and 'He' to refer to Jesus. Please select one and stick with it. Perhaps either is acceptable, but everyone agrees that inconsistency isn't. Kurrupt3d 06:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think neutral POV would suggest 'he' to refer to Jesus. Even a lot of Christians don't capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus. Statalyzer (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How come we can't have the spoilers template on articles to do with the actual BIble, then?
I don't get it.--Steven X 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * People in the audience may be hoping Mel put a Disney ending on it. / edgarde 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is Jesus didn't endure a Disney ending!!! Acually now that i think about it there was a Happy Ending !--Hornetman16 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised?
The first paragraph to the plot is:

"The film opens (in media res) with Dr. Seuss in the midst of an agonizing struggle about whether to go through with the crucifixion in the Secret Garden, on the Mount of Olives. He temporarily leaves his masturbation rituals, and finds Peter, James, and John sleeping against a tree."

Now not having seen the movie, I don't know whether this is the plot, but I assume Mr Gibson didn't deviate from the source material this much...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MetalMidget (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Where around Chicago this film amy be viewed in 4/6/2007. I like to view it in Movie theather again ?

Historicity in THIS movie?
It is like discussing historicity of Erik the Viking, the section contains dubious statements such as "Jesus' route follows the fourteen Stations of the Cross of Catholic tradition, although some claim that many of them are not historical." disregarding that Jesus himself is not a historical figure. Faith and traditions thereof are the product of theologists and believers, not of historians. Another example, "Pilate is depicted not only as sympathetic to Jesus (as the gospels maintain) but as fearing the reaction of Rome, should complaints of brutality reach the capital. There is no direct evidence supporting the view. As recorded by Josephus, Pilate committed many barbaric acts against the Jews, and only showed mercy when they protested in mass. So it is unlikely that he would have acted this way toward Jesus." but that should rather be directed towards the authors of the New Testament. As a matter of fact there are tons of inaccuracies in the "gospel" giving enough material for tomes of work done by various authors as cited in the introduction to Ludwig Feuerbach's 'the essence of christianity' (he cites 'Lützelberger' as one of the authors pointing them out, but there are numerous others - we can't squezze a tome of 700 pages in 19th century blackletter German into an article about just another movie about Jesus). 84.167.245.214 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Skobac promotion?
As someone who is familiar with Rabbi Skoback's work, he would not have said this as a promotion to the film, he is active in Jews for Judaism in fighting missionaries!

Languages
Why, I wonder, has Greek disappeared from the linguistic landscape? Would Roman officials really have spoken Latin to the indigenous authorities? Whathojeeves 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stations of the Cross
No friend of the Vatican but feel it fair to draw attention to entry on Stations of the Cross where it says in alternate version at station 8 Jesus is buggered by religious official. I am well aware of "priestly practices" having attended an RC Secondary School, but play fair and remove this malicious entry or cite an authoritative source with a verifiable location.Charleybonkers 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin
The sentence in regards to the pronunciation of the Latin used in the film is clearly an opinion. It is not a fact. Even if most scholars agree that Latin `probably` was pronounced differently, they have no way of showing that factually. This sentence needs to be edited to show that it is only an opinion that the Latin `would` have been pronounced differently. If the article is to keep the sentence at all, a source needs to be provided for the opinion. The tone of the sentence that says that the pronunciation is `clearly out of place` needs to be changed from its current negative form to a more neutral form. This subject matter probably, in my opinion, doesn`t really even need to be discussed but if it is to remain at all, then I suggest that someone find a site that shows examples of actual Latin text used in the movie so that people can compare the pronuniation used in the movie with what these `scholars` `think`　the pronunciation `should` have been.

Let us remember also, that for every Latinist that thinks that the so called Ecclesiastial pronunciation is wrong, there is at least on if not two that think that it is correct. Every bit of proof on this issue is only circumstantial and just as many other pieces of just as logical and well formed theory can be produced for both sides. Take for example the often used proof that the V of Latin was pronounced like a W of English. They use a borrowing as the so called proof but that is just illogical as it is more likely that the tribe doing the borrowing simply was mispronouncing the Latin U. We must also look at the large number of times that the Latin F was misspelled as a Latin V, showing that they were at least closer in sound then the English F and W are today.

Please consider this matter and strive to make this article more factual and more neutral. I know that is a tall task for Wikipedia but I ask nothing more then you follow your own published rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.42.188  (talk • contribs)  03:38, 10 October 2007

Tags: POV, OR
I don't see any discussion here about the POV and OR tags. Either there should be some discussion or the tags should be removed. Sbowers3 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MATRIX SARDIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.185.237 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I'm doing NPOV tag cleanup. It is WP policy that a tag should be accompanied by a post on the discussion page stating exactly why the tag was place, and thoughts about what should be done about it. This permits discussion and resolution between editors. No discussion means drive-by tagging - it's history. Jjdon (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dove
Hmmm.... so much discussion, yet it seems like nobody noticed that the first time Jesus was brought to Pilate, when Pilate was talking to the High Priests, Jesus looks up and there is a dove flying in a stationary manner.

Why?

 * What was the purpose of including this in the script?
 * What motived Mel Gibson to do so?

From where?
nt007bond 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the source of this inclusion? I don't think it is New Testament.
 * Was it any of the other historical sources?
 * Or was it included because it simply "looked good"?

In the catholic religion, the dove represents the Holy Spirit, a member of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Mel Gibson might have wanted to incorporate this aspect of Catholicism into the movie.

The dove isn't just a catholic symbol, it's also a chrisitan symbol. Gibson was just putting a little symbolism into the scene, that's all. A lot of movie directors do that. It's part of the art.


 * THE DOVE IS THE SYMBOL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THANK YOU!!!--Hornetman16 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The dove represents the Holy Spirit in Christianity in general, as the Bible says that when Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, the Spirit descended on him in a form like a dove. Statalyzer (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald did another thing too. When Mary come to Jesus (the moment after the flashback little Jesus fell down, after Jesus fell down holding the cross), then Jesus said, "Behold, mother, I make all things new." It's not from the gospel. It's from Revelation 21:5a "Then He who sat on the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.'" (NKJV). --Calvin Limuel (林德耀) 04:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Limuel (talk • contribs)

Anti-Semitism duplicated in controversy
Is there a reason for the two section headlines of Anti-Semitism? Should they be combined? Pgrote 15:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)