Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FlimFlamMan · 02-25-2004, 12:49 PM

Ok I'm looking for a list of historical inaccuracies in Mel Gibsons's Passion movie. I was not sure where to post this. Mods move if needed.

I have read these problems so far.

Pontious should be speaking Greek not Latin. Greek was the common government language of the time.

Jesus would not have carried his whole cross, only the horizontal cross beam.

The film shows that Jesus had the nails driven through his palms but it should be his wrist/fore arm.

Got any more?

Toto · 02-25-2004, 01:51 PM

Gibson's movie was based on the gospels, which are not historical. Pilate was a vicious dictator and not the semi-enlightened guy portrayed in the gospels and the movie. The Sandedrin did not meet at night.

Oh, and Jesus did not rise from the dead at the end.

MortalWombat · 02-25-2004, 02:01 PM

[Note: I didn't see the movie, but am going by how the Gospels portray the story, which is supposedly what Gibson used as a reference]

Pilate would not have been a wuss and given in to the wishes of a mob of Jews. Both Philo and Josephus describe him as being a pretty ruthless bastard who often used jack-booted tactics against his Jewish subjects, and was actually removed from office because of this.

There most likely would not have been a round tomb blocking stone blocking the entrance to the tomb. The vast majority of blocking stones from before Jewish War in 70 are square. There are only 4 known examples of roung blocking stones prior to the Jewish War, and all are from elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich, such as the tomb complex of the family of Herod the Great.

rlogan · 02-25-2004, 04:34 PM

I think Toto already addressed the essential issue.

To be historically accurate you would be showing scenes of the men who copied things from the OT into the story they were fabricating.

You'd have them mulling over decisions like how to get him born in Bethlehem but coming out of Egypt.

I think a Monty Python approach would be better for historicity.

Kosh · 02-25-2004, 04:51 PM

It never happened...

sodium · 02-25-2004, 08:05 PM

Inaccuracies? None. Mel Gibson has simply provided us with another Gospel. Yet another independent (since it isn't purely textually copied) account of Jesus's life. He even provides us with new incidental details that are omitted by the other four Gospels. This is really a major find for New Testament scholarship.

Toto · 02-25-2004, 08:26 PM

Jesus scholars find fault in Gibson's Passion

Quote:

The mistakes, experts say, didn't stop with the wrong language, which Crossan -- who speaks Latin -- said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.

"He has a long-haired Jesus . . . Jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. "Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."

. . .

For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles.

They say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus' last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.

. . .

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

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

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

Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.

. . .

nermal · 02-25-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodium
Inaccuracies? None. Mel Gibson has simply provided us with another Gospel. Yet another independent (since it isn't purely textually copied) account of Jesus's life. He even provides us with new incidental details that are omitted by the other four Gospels. This is really a major find for New Testament scholarship.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, John,.....and Mel. Yep, 1500 years from now people will be talking about the celluloid gospel from the cannon. There won't be any discrepancies between it and the other four, they'll just be misinterperetations by disingenuous atheists.

Ed

Artemus · 02-26-2004, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.

Well of course. 120 minutes of the most graphic violence ever on film (according to Roger Ebert) is one thing, but a brief shot of a naked man would have made it inappropriate for the more sensitive audience members.

cloudyphiz · 02-26-2004, 08:51 AM

he apparently* left out the zombies of matthew 27:45-56 while including every other line from that passage. now why would he do that?

-gary

* i say apparently as i haven't actually seen the film myself so i'm gonig on hearsay

02-25-2004, 12:49 PM	#1
FlimFlamMan Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland MI USA Posts: 136	passion inaccuracies? Ok I'm looking for a list of historical inaccuracies in Mel Gibsons's Passion movie. I was not sure where to post this. Mods move if needed. I have read these problems so far. Pontious should be speaking Greek not Latin. Greek was the common government language of the time. Jesus would not have carried his whole cross, only the horizontal cross beam. The film shows that Jesus had the nails driven through his palms but it should be his wrist/fore arm. Got any more?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2004, 01:51 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Gibson's movie was based on the gospels, which are not historical. Pilate was a vicious dictator and not the semi-enlightened guy portrayed in the gospels and the movie. The Sandedrin did not meet at night. Oh, and Jesus did not rise from the dead at the end.

02-25-2004, 02:01 PM	#3
MortalWombat Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St Louis area Posts: 3,458	[Note: I didn't see the movie, but am going by how the Gospels portray the story, which is supposedly what Gibson used as a reference] Pilate would not have been a wuss and given in to the wishes of a mob of Jews. Both Philo and Josephus describe him as being a pretty ruthless bastard who often used jack-booted tactics against his Jewish subjects, and was actually removed from office because of this. There most likely would not have been a round tomb blocking stone blocking the entrance to the tomb. The vast majority of blocking stones from before Jewish War in 70 are square. There are only 4 known examples of roung blocking stones prior to the Jewish War, and all are from elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich, such as the tomb complex of the family of Herod the Great.

02-25-2004, 04:34 PM	#4
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	I think Toto already addressed the essential issue. To be historically accurate you would be showing scenes of the men who copied things from the OT into the story they were fabricating. You'd have them mulling over decisions like how to get him born in Bethlehem but coming out of Egypt. I think a Monty Python approach would be better for historicity.

02-25-2004, 04:51 PM	#5
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	It never happened...

02-25-2004, 08:05 PM	#6
sodium Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: British Columbia Posts: 1,027	Inaccuracies? None. Mel Gibson has simply provided us with another Gospel. Yet another independent (since it isn't purely textually copied) account of Jesus's life. He even provides us with new incidental details that are omitted by the other four Gospels. This is really a major find for New Testament scholarship.

02-26-2004, 08:51 AM	#10
cloudyphiz Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: rochester, ny, usa Posts: 658	he apparently* left out the zombies of matthew 27:45-56 while including every other line from that passage. now why would he do that? -gary * i say apparently as i haven't actually seen the film myself so i'm gonig on hearsay

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.