Cross Examiner

I don't believe this new thread on the Passion to be redundant to any other in this forum since I am unaware of another Christian's report on the film. That said, last night, 800+ of my closest friends packed into what must be the largest film auditorium/movie theatre in San Diego to watch the Passion of the Christ. My very short review is that Mel's work is technically masterful and artistically stunning. Regarding storyline, emotionally provocative. The pace is so unrelenting and the visuals are so gut-wrenching that I saw none of the usual stirring in the audience; there were no bathroom breaks etc. during the film whatsoever. Nonetheless, I do recommend that any who can handle a hefty amount of on-screen violence see the movie. If you're curious on some of the details, I'll field sincere questions about it while ignoring ad hominems and other forms of antagonism.

Regards,
BGic

Gooch's dad

Did the movie have the cross being assembled in the Temple under the supervision of the Jewish leaders?

gsx1138

Was the cross depicted as an actual Roman torture device? ie: a large stake with an attached crossbeam. Or was it the merchandise version where it's all one piece?

Cross Examiner

Gooch's dad,
If the cross was assembled in the Temple under Jewish supervision then I missed it. A mounted centurion and guard did the prep work while Christ struggled up an insanely long Via Dolorosa. Let's just say that my Protestant background insufficiently prepared me for accompanying him up the arduous road to Golgotha. After seeing what I saw, I think I understand why Catholic crucifixes depict Christ still on the cross, emphasizing the suffering that Jesus endured, as opposed to the bare cross that Protestants use, emphasizing the resurrection.

gsx1138,
The two criminals condemned alongside Christ were nailed and roped to a traditional stake and crossbeam, forming a 'T'. Christ's stake bisected the crossbeam, apparently in order to house the written 'charge' above his head.

Mageth

Christ struggled up an insanely long Via Dolorosa

Did he do some or all of the "Stations of the Cross?" It's my understanding that 1) the Via Dolorosa is probably not the route that was taken; it was accepted as the official route by the Church some time in the past, but we actually don't know the route; and 2) that the Stations of the Cross are largely mythical.

Cross Examiner

I believe that 12 of the 14 stations were depicted. The one where Mary comforts Jesus as he stumbles was especially well done by use of flashback to when she would pick Jesus up when he fell down as a little boy. There is a very strong mother-son element in this plotline (which I did not expect beforehand) that mothers of sons may consider a redeeming value to the violence. That alone might be worth the price of admission, IMO. Regarding Via Dolorosa and the stations, I would distinguish between a lack of explicit, written apostolic support and 'myth'. But then I know enough about you to understand why you'd trot that pony out, Mageth

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
I believe all seven (?) stations were depicted.

There are 14 stations of the cross in Catholic tradition, IIRC. Some have biblical support, some do not.

Edited to add: I note you corrected this.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/viewpage.php?story=35

The one where Mary comforts Jesus as he stumbles was especially well done by use of flashback to when she would pick Jesus up when he fell down as a little boy. There is a very strong mother-son element in this plotline (which I did not expect beforehand) that mothers of sons may consider a redeeming value to the violence.

Not surprising, since it's my understanding that the film takes a more or less Catholic view of the events.

That alone might be worth the price of admission, IMO. Regarding Via Dolorosa and the stations, I would distinguish between a lack of explicit, written apostolic support and 'myth'. But then I know enough about you to understand why you'd trot that pony out, Mageth

Apparently, you know nothing about me in regards to the use of the term "myth", and perhaps not much about its proper usage in regards to quasi-historical accounts such as the crucifixion.

Since you seem to like dictionary definitions, perhaps you should look up some good definitions of "myth". True events can be mythologized. For example, from Merriam-Webster's Online, I submit the following two definitions. They are adequate, but perhaps not the best:

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

Since we cannot historically or biblically verify some of the Stations of the Cross, as you admit, they will remain in the realm of myth, as opposed to history. Further, since we cannot historically verify the entire crucifixion account depicted in the movie, but must depend on a religious text (the Bible) for the alleged details, it is absolutely correct to refer to the entire crucifixion account as a myth and not as an historical account.

NOTE: in so saying, I am not charging that the crucifixion account is untrue, or contains no truth. This is a definition of "myth" (something untrue) that I am not using here. The crucifixioin account may or may not be true (or more or less true); however, it is properly a myth and not an historical account.

I find it a bit interesting that the movie incorporates some of the mythical "Stations", though it's not too surprising since it's my understanding that the movie has a particularly Catholic flavor, and the Stations are a Catholic tradition.

I'm also interested in Protestant reaction to any mythical "Stations" portrayed, as many Protestant churches don't teach them at all. Do they realize that some of the events depicted are Catholic traditions? Will these mythical stations further pervade the popular Jesus myth?

RED DAVE

Why did he take out the part (from John, I think) where some Jewish official (or priest) claims responsibility for the crucifixion on behalf of all Jews. I mean, if it's in the gospels, why take it out?

RED DAVE

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
I responded quickly, thinking there were seven. Then I thought, 'hey, why not just look them up and compare against what I remember being depicted?' As mentioned, I remember seeing 12 of 14. In the film, I don't recall Jesus being stripped or actually laid in the tomb.
Catholic? Definitely. But I observed that the Catholic view is apparently very similar to the Protestant view. There was nothing in the film that bothered me in the slightest with regard to the doctrine of our 'mere' Christianity.
That depends upon many things. One of those things is what sense of the word 'myth' do you use and to what do you apply it?
Though this is not BC&H, I am within scope to remind you that your opinions are just that, opinions. Historical verification is rather complicated, much more so than than is intimated above. Moreover, you've offered no basis to conclude a priori as objective fact that the Gospel records (or Catholic tradition) are not historically accurate, that they somehow do not reflect accurately on the ANE events of the time etc. Going forward, it is better to preface your assertions with 'I believe that' rather than 'it is absolutely correct that', especially without offering any evidence or argument as exemplified in the above.
I would not categorize Matthew 26-29 as 'myth' and not 'an historical account', especially without good cause let alone without any cause at all, as you do in the above. You offer no premises, no evidence yet conclude that the crucifixion account is a myth and not history, as a matter of fact? That’s bad form.
As a Protestant, I might categorize the sixth station, for example, where Veronica assists Christ as 'myth' (using either of your senses from Merriam-Webster) solely out of my personal ignorance on the details of that tradition. I think most Protestants would likewise plead ignorance on a variety of such Catholic traditions. Honesty demands that I recuse myself. I am simply in no position to judge Catholic traditions without having done the homework. The NT, however, is another case altogether. Anyway, I don't wish to derail this thread.

RED DAVE,
He didn't take it out. Not really. The mob, incited by a few determined priests, still shouts out the corporate 'mea culpa' (in Aramaic, of course) to Pilate as reported in the Matthean account. What Mel removed from this scene is the normally-corresponding subtitles, the translation from spoken Aramaic to written English is gone in the theatrical-release version. That is, the audience hears it (albeit in an unfamiliar tongue) but doesn't 'see' it, as it were. I think Mel did this as a sympathetic nod to ADL concerns. Regarding Foxman et al., I think they've overplayed their cards. If anything, the Passion of the Christ seems somewhat sympathetic to the Jews (the people anyway, not the leadership) and gives a harsh picture of the Romans, all the Romans. There is not one favorably portrayed Roman figure whereas all the admirable protagonists are Jews.

Edit to add: woops. You could make a case that Claudia, Pilate's wife, acts admirably as far as it be in her power to do so. You'll see what I mean when you watch the film.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Catholic? Definitely. But I observed that the Catholic view is apparently very similar to the Protestant view. There was nothing in the film that bothered me in the slightest with regard to the doctrine of our 'mere' Christianity.

In this case, by "Catholic" view I was referring to the apparent stressing of Mary in the events that you mention. You do know what the Catholics think of Mary, don't you?

That depends upon many things. One of those things is what sense of the word 'myth' do you use and to what do you apply it?

If you read my post, you should understand in what sense I apply the word "myth" in this case.

Though this is not BC&H, I am within scope to remind you that your opinions are just that, opinions. Historical verification is rather complicated, much more so than than is intimated above. Moreover, you've offered no basis to conclude a priori as objective fact that the Gospel records (or Catholic tradition) are not historically accurate, that they somehow do not reflect accurately on the ANE events of the time etc. Going forward, it is better to preface your assertions with 'I believe that' rather than 'it is absolutely correct that', especially without offering any evidence or argument as exemplified in the above.

Once again, you express your misunderstanding. I do not claim to know that the events are not historically accurate. I do claim to know that the events are not historically verifiable, so they cannot be honestly claimed as "historically accurate". The events in question are only recorded in obviously religious texts. Therefore, it is absolutely correct to refer to the events in question as myth; indeed, the entire canonical Gospels are quite correctly referred to as myth, as are the Genesis creation accounts and flood account, among many other Biblical stories.

As I said, when I use "myth" in this sense, I do not mean "untrue". They may be true in total, true in part (which is what I suspect), or totally untrue (which I have not claimed). We do not, and cannot, know one way or another, so therefore they remain properly classified as "myth".

I would not categorize Matthew 26-29 as 'myth' and not 'an historical account', especially without good cause let alone without any cause at all, as you do in the above. You offer no premises, no evidence yet conclude that the crucifixion account is a myth and not history, as a matter of fact? That’s bad form.

False, and you still express gross misunderstanding, as illustrated by your comment "myth and not history". "Myth" does not mean "untrue" or "not historical" as I use it; it means it is a (typically religious) tale (often containing fantastic or miraculous events) that is not historically verifiable, and is therefore correctly classified as a myth.

And I gave the "cause" and premises as to why the scriptures in question are correctly classified as "myth" in my first post, and have repeated it here. The events are the accounts of a religion (or mythology, properly) recorded in a religous text and are not historically verifiable. Therefore, they are correctly classified as "myth" and not "historically accurate" descriptions of the events. To remove them from this classification, you must provide independent historical verification of the events. In other words, it is your job to provide evidence to remove the accounts from the classification of myth, not my job to provide evidence as to why they are properly classified as myth.

As a Protestant, I might categorize the sixth station, for example, where Veronica assists Christ as 'myth' (using either of your senses from Merriam-Webster) solely out of my personal ignorance on the details of that tradition. I think most Protestants would likewise plead ignorance on a variety of such Catholic traditions. Honesty demands that I recuse myself. I am simply in no position to judge Catholic traditions without having done the homework. The NT, however, is another case altogether.

The NT is absolutely not "another case altogether". Much of it (esp. the Gospel accounts) are clearly relgious texts (the Gospels were not written as literal, historically accurate accounts of Jesus' life, BTW, contrary to Christian popular opinion - the contradictions between the four canonical gospels is enough to illustrate this point, though there are other indications) have no more independent historical verification than the Station(s) that you correctly, if tacitly, identified as myth above.