Vinnie

Gospel of Thomas didn't even get plugged! Major error!

Amaleq13

He probably feared being sued because of the obvious similarities with the soon-to-be-released remake of Dawn of the Dead.

CX

It seems to me it would simplify things considerably to limit yourself to identifying accuracies in the movie as they are much fewer in number than the things that are wrong. Ultimately, though, you need to clarify whether you mean accuracy with respect to the gospel texts or accuracy with respect to actual historical events.

Mageth

Along the lines of CX's post...historical inaccuracies in the movie? Well, as far as accuracies, there was a city named Jerusalem, a man named Pilate, a Passover celebration, and the Romans did crucify people...beyond that, it's hard to say. Most of the rest isn't knowable as "accurate" or "inaccurate". The movie depicts a legend, a myth if you will, of Jesus and the crucifixion. I'm not saying that it is "untrue" per se, but that the Gospel accounts depict a legend of Jesus and the Crucifixion, not an "accurate" or "inaccurate" historical account of Jesus.

As far as Biblical accuracy, I suspect the movie sticks pretty close to the legend, with some embellishments. Indeed, some of these embellishments may be added to the legend.

JoyJuice

Did I notice that he had Jesus saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," while doing the sermon on the mount? Is that only in John, if certainly not in Matthew?

And does Satan really look like Marilyn Manson?

Doctor X

No, Courtney Love. . . .

--J.D.

JoeWallack

JW:
Gibson's Passion is primarily an apology designed to try and answer the objection to Christian theology:

What was so significant about Jesus' suffering compared to others who have suffered such as innocent Jews being slowly tortured over three years by Christian Nazis and getting to watch their children and spouses being murdered up close? It's easy to find examples of other even worse beatings than Jesus supposedly endured such as the beating JP Holding took when he tried to defend against my claim of error that "Mark" said there was one demonic and "Matthew" said there were two:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthr...2&page=1&pp=16

(You have to be a member to access this. It's worth it.)

The problem someone like Gibson has trying to make a related movie even longer than the equally ill fated tour of the SS Minnow is that all the best source material says about the event is this:

Mark 15: (RSV)
"[15] So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
[16] And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion.
[17] And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him.
[18] And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"
[19] And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
[20] And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.
[21] And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.
[22] And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull).
[23] And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it.
[24] And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take.
[25] And it was the third hour, when they crucified him.
[26] And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."
[27] And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.
[29] And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days,
[30] save yourself, and come down from the cross!"
[31] So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself.
[32] Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.
[33] And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
[34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
[35] And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Eli'jah."
[36] And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to take him down."
[37] And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last."

You can read the above in about 5 minutes so anyone claiming that a related three hour movie is primarily based on the Gospels is full of Holy Something.

There is a portion of "Mark" I assume that Gibson has ignored (haven't seen the movie. As another poster said I'm waiting for the Director's Cut DVD to come out with an additional 45 minutes of "The Jews" torturing and cursing Jesus) which implies that the scourging wasn't all that bad:

Mark 15: (RSV)
"[43] Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
[44] And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead.
[45] And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph."

The best translation of "And Pilate wondered if he were already dead" is probably "And Pilate was amazed he was already dead" (this is how Brown translates). Why would Pilate be surprised that Jesus was already dead if he received a helluvsya beating? Specifically in Gibson's movie consider the amount of blood supposedly lost. The likely explanation is that Pilate was surprised because Jesus only received a routine, non-life threatening scourging. If I can be permitted to speculate here like Gibson has it's doubtful that scourgings were as Gibson has depicted because:

1) The point of the crucifixion was a slow death. An extreme beating would be counter-productive.

2) The Romans likely wanted the victim recognizable while on the stake.

3) It takes a lot more effort to inflict a beating than to endure one. What incentive would a Roman soldier who didn't even know Jesus have to go above and beyond the call of duty?

4) As there were relatively few Roman soldiers in Jerusalem any Roman soldier showing emotion and perceived to dish out more than the necessary punishment ran the risk of retaliation from a hostile population.


Joseph

"STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Sven

I looked on my watch - it took my 70 seconds And I'm even not a native speaker!

gregor

Line of the week:

_____________________________

"It's easy to find examples of other even worse beatings than Jesus supposedly endured such as the beating JP Holding took when he tried to defend against my claim . . ."

_____________________________

CX

We need to be aware of the fact that Gibson's film is an attempt at a harmony of all 4 gospels. Consequently it takes bits and pieces from all 4 texts. The phrase you mention above is only found in GJn and is consider by many scholars to be a later addition to the text.

Hmmm...did the film have Satan in rubber pants with his ass hanging out?