The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ

Well, Bubba for starters, the Gospels do deviate somewhat from what we know of history-Pilate, for example, was a bloodthirsty, cruel thug-there's no way he would have given in to a mob like that. He eventually was recalled and punished for the way he handled things. If he had wanted Jesus to live, he would have dismissed him. If he had wanted Jesus to die, he would have had it done.

There was some attempt to paint the Romans in a more sympathetic way, AND sadly, yes, in the past, Passion plays have been used in ways to promote anti-semitism. They're not supposed to, but that's human nature.

The authorities who wanted Jesus to be executed were merely the ancient Jewish equivalent of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, not a representation of Judaism in general. There's jerks in every crowd.

Also, Christ WOULD have been crucified through the wrists, not the palms of his hands, nor would he have carried the whole cross-just the cross beam.

So the Gospel writers took some creative license-so what? I think the message is still important.

 

Well, Bubba for starters, the Gospels do deviate somewhat from what we know of history-Pilate, for example, was a bloodthirsty, cruel thug.

Well that's one dimension of the man.

there's no way he would have given in to a mob like that.

I'm not suer how this follows from above.

He eventually was recalled and punished for the way he handled things. If he had wanted Jesus to live, he would have dismissed him. If he had wanted Jesus to die, he would have had it done.

And if he was ambivalent about the matter? The Gospels and the Passion do not depict a Pilate who seems utterly invested in this Jesus, but a magnate who's just been interrupted by an angry mob demanding the death of someone he knew little about and cared little for.

There was some attempt to paint the Romans in a more sympathetic way...

If by sympathetic you mean uncaring, detached and damn near robotic, I'd agree. Do you think most riot control officers spend much time thinking about the motivations of rowdy anti-WTO protesters and how that will temper or inflame their response on the line?

The authorities who wanted Jesus to be executed were merely the ancient Jewish equivalent of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, not a representation of Judaism in general.

It's a serious charge to equate two law abiding, upstanding American citizens with patricians who murderously conspired to kill an innocent man. Tell me what Falwell and Robertson have done that they deserve such contempt.

There's jerks in every crowd.

And why do you count Robertson and Falwell with them?

Also, Christ WOULD have been crucified through the wrists, not the palms of his hands, nor would he have carried the whole cross-just the cross beam.

A minor point.

So the Gospel writers took some creative license-so what? I think the message is still important.

The Gospel writers or Mel Gibson? The Greek word for hand can include the wrist area.

Rev Prez

 

Just going back to the nails in wrists/palms thing.

I noticed this when I watched the trailer, and immediately made a point of mentioning it to my partner. (The film is not released here in the UK yet).

Now from what I remember from RE, crucifixion involved nails in the wrists rather than palms, cos the palms would just tear. (As was mentioned before)

What I haven't read here though is that there are numerous accounts of crucifixions which have been handed down from people at the time (Pliny for example), and it appears that it was generally the case for nails to pass between the two bones in the forearm (at the wrist end) for strength purposes.

Now here is where I'm confused. If Gibson wanted the film to be accurately violent and disturbing, why change this. To me, the thought of nails going through my wrists between the bones is much more horrific than a nail through the palm

 

Guin, I'm not quite sure that the Gospels' account of Pilate is historically inaccurate. Paul Maier, who wrote about him in his 1968 Potius Pilate, showed that his patron (or protector) plotted against the emperor and fell from power in A.D. 31. If, as seems likely, Jesus was crucified after the patron's fall from grace, that would explain Pilate's reluctance to do anything to offend the Jewish leaders and draw more attention from Rome.

Politics is as it ever was: even a hard-nosed Nixon is not so ruthless when that ruthlessness has consequences.


The authorities who wanted Jesus to be executed were merely the ancient Jewish equivalent of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, not a representation of Judaism in general. There's jerks in every crowd.

I agree, and criticizing Mussolini (for instance) doesn't mean a person is biased against all Italians. I understand that some people have wrongly used the criticism of the first-century Jewish leadership to justify Jewish persecution, but surely that doesn't mean that we should now be prohibited from ever discussing the idea that some Jews aren't nice people.


Also, Christ WOULD have been crucified through the wrists, not the palms of his hands, nor would he have carried the whole cross-just the cross beam.

Well, Alexander Matherell, a doctor and research scientist interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ asserts that, in the contemporary language, the wrist was part of the hand. So the Gospel accounts, which do not specify the palm of the hand, may well be accurate. I don't have the resources handy, but it may be the case that, likewise, the problem of what Jesus actually carried to Golgotha is not an actual problem of the original texts.

We shouldn't trust 15th-century paintings and even 21st-century films as being completely accurate visualizations of what the 1st-century Gospel writers wrote.


EDIT: On the question of why Gibson didn't have the nails through the wrist...

Two possibilities: either he thought it would raise more questions than it was worth, people who know the Crucifixion only from paintings and older films would ask why the nails weren't driven in the hands; or, he wanted to remain faithful to the Renaissance art which inspired a lot of the visuals of the film, even if at the expense of a minor detail or two.

And, if y'all noticed, Jesus' arms were also tied to the cross. The reason the nails were driven through the wrists were because, otherwise, the hand would rip off the wood. Tying the arm to the wood would, I think, still allow nails to be driven in the hands. It's a working, physically feasible solution even if it wasn't strictly historically accurate.

 

I posted this a page back, but I will put it here again:

Gibson's version had ropes holding up Jesus's arms, so the nails would not tear out of his hands.

Secondly, the stigmatas that have appeared to on the bodies of such people as Saint Francis of Assi and Padre Pio show the nail wounds on the hands.

 

Great minds think alike, Flyer.

 

A blogger had an interesting assertion...

If Mr. Gibson on his own dime made a film of identical quality about a Marxist guerrilla who was tortured to death at the hands of a rightwing ruling junta after being betrayed by a rival insurgency group, you could start engraving his name on an Oscar right now. Bonus points if his father were a cranky old loon who denied Stalin's purges. [link]

One of those statements I wish I had thought of.

 

Gibson's version had ropes holding up Jesus's arms, so the nails would not tear out of his hands.

But from what is this based?

Secondly, the stigmatas that have appeared to on the bodies of such people as Saint Francis of Assi and Padre Pio show the nail wounds on the hands.

Hmmm, not sure how to approach that one. My respect for the Christian faith is based on the bible, and not subsequent events and reports. I don't believe the bible states or prophesises stigmata.

I am not dismissing stigmata, but I personally don't accept it as proof that Christ had nails through his palms, and not his wrists, as was common practice

 

I am not dismissing stigmata, but I personally don't accept it as proof that Christ had nails through his palms, and not his wrists, as was common practice

I was under the impression that nails were an aboration, and that most criminals were hung up by ropes as the end method of dying was suffacation, not blood loss.

 

That's true with hanging, but the cause of death by crucifixion is not suffocation

 

First, I will remind you that the film also portrays Mary, John, Mary Magdalene, and Simon the Cyrene -- all Jews -- in a positive light. While there was a mob before Pilate, there were also crowds weeping on the road to Golgotha. Gibson did not portray "the Jews" negatively; he portrayed some of the Jews negatively.

It just so happens that several of the Jewish persons who were portrayed most negatively had big hook noses, and most of the rest of the Jewish people did not. I think that's where the offense lies - the good Jews (especially the core characters of Jesus, Mary, and Mary Mags) are largely portrayed as generic Mediterranean white guys, while the high priests of the temple are largely portrayed in the very specific stereotypical Jewish ethnic look. Of course (then as now) people in a given population will have varying degrees of features that are commonly thought of as ethnic, but you'd think the distribution of features in that population would be a bit more random than they are in this movie which seems to skew the distribution along moral lines. It's the same with the Romans: the rank and file brutal Roman soldiers appear uber-Italian compared to the more generic white (and hence noble?) Pilate and Claudia. People are very sensitive to portrayals of ethnicity; it's wise to distribute the stereotypes randomly, not to mention statistically more accurate.

At any rate, the whole thing gets complex when you throw in a nearly 2,000 year European artistic tradition, the disastrous turn that anti-Semitism took in the 20th century, and the complications of production and casting that any movie faces.

 

That's true with hanging, but the cause of death by crucifixion is not suffocation

I'm pretty damn sure that you suffucate when you are crucified (as your lungs are not able to fill with air because you are hanging by your arms) and with hangings you actually die because your break you neck (which would then cut off your heart, lungs, and other useful bodily functions).

 

Some accounts suggest that crucifiction actually kills because the strain on the heart becomes so great that it essentially explodes. This is consistent with the appearance of "water" when the soldier pierced Christ's side after he was dead.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, this is certainly an interesting discussion! I've done a few searches and come up with the following thoughts, for each side

"Historical Roman accounts and experimental work have established that the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists (radial and ulna) and not through the palms. Nails driven through the palms will strip out between the fingers when made to support the weight of the human body. The misconception may have come about through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Observe my hands." Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrist as part of the hand."


"The arms were usually roped to the cross, not nailed. Nails were expensive. Wood, too, was scarce in Judea, so crosses were usually reused."


"In the 1930s, a French physician named Pierre Barbet became so obsessed with the mechanics of the crucifixion that he nailed up cadavers to crosses, to see exactly where the nails must have pierced Christ's hands and feet. Among Barbet's conclusions was that Jesus must have been pierced through the wrists, not the palms of the hands. The tissue and bone and muscle of the human hand are too frail to support the weight of a vertical body. Barbet noted that nailed hands tore when required to support a weight of more than 88 pounds."


There is a fascinating article about it here

EDIT: Can't get link to work. Copy and paste!

EDIT 2: Got it to work!

 

somethingfamiliar, I think your analysis of the individual facial features indicates how silly political correctness can go, where we look not only at whether Jews were portrayed positively, negatively, or both, but whether certain portrayals looked too Jewish.

That said, it seemed to me that Peter, Simon of Cyrene, and even Jesus Himself appeared thoroughly Jewish.

And, I'll also add, it's probably difficult to not look Jewish in the full regalia of the Sanhedrin.

 

I've been a Traditional Roman Catholic for my entire life, and I'm not a Bible-basher. However, I know the Gospel Passions of the Evangelists pretty well, and since they all pretty much agree, I'm inclined to think that they're historically accurate. (However, we take this on faith, this is just to try and convince the rest of you.)

And the nails were deifintely in the palms. I appreciate the point raised about the stigmata. Just about every crucifix depicts Our Lord (Christ, for those who don't know what I'm talking about) with the nails through his palms, and seeing that they've been around for some time, I don't think the design would have been changed from those who made them from the actual scene itself.

 

I'm just pissed that they still show Jesus as a white guy, which he most certainly was NOT. That's the REAL continuing controversy!

 

Well, I just saw the movie yesterday so I have to give my view on it.


First of all, I was raised as a Catholic, but it didn't take me long to realize that I was actually a non-believer. So I have been an athiest ever since. Although, I have read the Bible several times and am familiar with the story (actually more than alot of Christians), so I wanted to see the movie.


I found it a good film. The cinamatography is very well done. I did not get the feeling of anti-semitisam from the film, BUT I can see where people could say it is. Although, this is pretty well strait out of the bible, so you'd have to say the bible is anti-semitic. But I would recommond the film for people to see. Adults, of course, only. The film is very graphic, but I think that helps tell the story that Jesus was willing to go through all of this to save our sins. In all, I'd give it 3.5 out of 4.

In all, as someone who only treats it as a good story, I think the film will be very good for the Christian community. Even though I think it's only a made up story, I think that religion is very good for people's lives.


""The arms were usually roped to the cross, not nailed. Nails were expensive. Wood, too, was scarce in Judea, so crosses were usually reused.""

Yes, indeed. Alot of historians feel that Jesus would have never been crusified upon a cross, because of the fact that a cross would have to be built. Keep in mind wood is not only scarce in Judea, BUT in order to make a cross the wood would have to be cut by hand. There was no sawmills or power tools. Jesus, someone of no importance in the Roman world, would have more likely been cruisified upon a tree, as was commonly done.

And also, I've read that the Romans often would use pieces of a board to act as a giant washer when the nailed someone to a cross.

 

Schmader, everything I've seen suggests Caviezel is one of the most Semitic-looking actors to play the role. I wasn't thinking "white guy" when I saw him, but rather that he fit in exactly with everyone around him. Middle Easterners aren't all Arabic, after all - many are Caucasian (in the actual sense of that word) or other Mediterranean-featured.

In any event, Caviezel wasn't a blond, blue-eyed boy (they even colored his eyes darker digitally) playing Christ, and pretty much every other actor in the movie was Eastern European or Italian, which fits the features of the people of the time as well. As far as I can tell.

And finally, why be "pissed" at that at all?

 

And the nails were deifintely in the palms. I appreciate the point raised about the stigmata. Just about every crucifix depicts Our Lord (Christ, for those who don't know what I'm talking about) with the nails through his palms, and seeing that they've been around for some time, I don't think the design would have been changed from those who made them from the actual scene itself.

I don't actually think history supports that. They were nailed at the wrist, because the hands could not support the body weight and they'd tear apart.

E_S

 

They were nailed at the wrist, because the hands could not support the body weight and they'd tear apart.


But as I said, the arms would also be tied up. The majority of the weight would be on the ropes, not the nail.

 

I wasn't aware, historically, of tying wrists...

E_S

 

I've read several about several different methods that would be used at times.

In some cases, victims would simply be tied to a cross.

In other cases, they would be tied and nailed through the hands.

In still other cases, they would simply be nailed through the wrists.

Finally, they would be nailed through both the wrists and the hands.

The Romans used all of these methods, depending on many factors. It is nearly impossible to say that they only could have done it in one way.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Interesting op-ed in Monday's Times:

Not Peace, but a Sword
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 1, 2004

WASHINGTON ? The word "passion" is rooted in the Latin for "suffer." Mel Gibson's movie about the torture and agony of the final hours of Jesus is the bloodiest, most brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen.

Because the director's wallowing in gore finds an excuse in a religious purpose ? to show how horribly Jesus suffered for humanity's sins ? the bar against film violence has been radically lowered. Movie mayhem, long resisted by parents, has found its loophole; others in Hollywood will now find ways to top Gibson's blockbuster, to cater to voyeurs of violence and thereby to make bloodshed banal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?hp

 

The whole uproar against violence in films is that they showed violence not leaving any harm. The good guys always escaped unscathed.

However, in the Passion, the good guy is the one who is harmed.

Violence isn't the problem.

The problem is desensitization to violence.