Are those accounts in "Passion of the Christ" accurate?

[JackRT]

Another Scriptwriter for Mel Gibson's 'Passion'?

Aside from the above I cannot imagine the Jews (aside from the High Priesthood and the Saduccees) as having been complicit in the trial and execution of Jesus in any way. Mostly they would have mourned his death in a sad resigned way as just another in a long line of failed messiahs.

 

[JackRT]

Yup. Like Pilate's wife's dream.

Another would be Veronica's veil.

 

[Albion]

Another Scriptwriter for Mel Gibson's 'Passion'?

Aside from the above I cannot imagine the Jews (aside from the High Priesthood and the Saduccees) as having been complicit in the trial and execution of Jesus in any way. Mostly they would have mourned his death in a sad resigned way as just another in a long line of failed messiahs.

Thanks for that link. Some of it seems certainly to be extra-Biblical but not IMO particularly offensive or controversial for that reason, and some of it is extra-Biblical only to the extent that the Gospels don't record the details but we know from history that such is how the events most likely took place.

"What did Emmerich see in her visions?As written by Brentano, Emmerich saw visions of the Last Supper and the Agony in the Garden, as well as Jesus' arrest, scourging, and crucifixion. The visions are quite detailed. "The Dolorous Passion" describes many non-biblical events--such as a conversation between Pilate and his wife--and non-biblical scenes, such as Pilate "reposing in a comfortable chair, on a terrace which overlooked the forum, and a small three-legged table stood by his side, on which was placed the insignia of his office, and a few other things." In Mel Gibson's movie, the role of Pilate's wife is expanded far beyond the gospel's brief mention of her dream. Gibson's Pilate interacts with his wife several times, and she is portrayed as the sympathetic proto-Christian character Emmerich describes. The visions often draw from medieval legends and travelers' tales, claims Sandra Miesel, a Catholic journalist who has researched Emmerich. For example, Emmerich describes the cross as being made out of five kinds of wood, as in medieval legend. Emmerich also describes Bible characters with "fantastic clothing and hairstyles that owe more to late medieval German art than to the actual fashions of Antiquity," writes Miesel in an article for Catholic International.Emmerich's visions of Jesus' suffering are very graphic. There is much more gore in her descriptions than in the gospels. In one vision, for example, Jesus "tottered rather than walked, and was almost unrecognisable from the effects of his sufferings during the night; -he was colourless, haggard, his face swollen and even bleeding, and his merciless persecutors continued to torment him each moment more and more."

 

[FireDragon76]

Another Scriptwriter for Mel Gibson's 'Passion'?

Aside from the above I cannot imagine the Jews (aside from the High Priesthood and the Saduccees) as having been complicit in the trial and execution of Jesus in any way. Mostly they would have mourned his death in a sad resigned way as just another in a long line of failed messiahs.

Ancient and medieval Jewish literature seems to suggest Jesus might have been regarded as a sorcerer by the Jewish elders. And the NT itself makes it clear Jesus was being mourned by many of his people, such as the women he encounters on the way to Golgotha.

 

[JackRT]

Gibson's portrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not! The trial of Jesus, if there was one, was in name only. Jesus had challenged Roman political authority...Jesus must die.

 

[miamited]

Most of Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" is based on the delirious ravings of a sickly German nun, Catherine Emerich, who lived about two centuries ago. The film is neither accurate to history nor to the Bible. I regard it as the pornography of violence.

Hi jack,

I'm curious what you think those last few hours of Jesus' life were actually like in the lived out reality of it in those days? Jesus and the floggers sat around drinking coffee lattes and ribbing each other and poking each other with jokes and stories of the good old days? The crown of thorns had each thorn covered in foam so as not to cause any undue pain to the Lord? The use of tie wraps to bind his feet and hands to the wooden cross beams.

I honestly don't think you truly understand the agony that was intended to be a display of excruciating punishment that the Romans wanted flogging and crucifixion to be. Today most civilized governments put people to death rather quickly and here in the states we want it to be as painless as possible, but just to bring about the death of the perpetrator. Most historians agree that such was not the case for the design of the death penalty in ancient Rome. Remember, these are the guys who found fun and game in having people fight with lions to the death. Civil and Capital punishments were well orchestrated to be pretty painful. As entertaining games they would have their gladiators fight to the death of one of them. The hope being that if other people saw such pain, they'd keep away from such wickedness as the criminal was accused of.

I honestly can't imagine anyone 'knowing' that Jesus suffering as portrayed in Mr. Gibson's Passion movie as not being accurate to the Scriptures. The Psalmist wrote of the agony that he would endure but yet, not one of his bones were broken. They speak of how his joints came apart. In Psalm 22, which most any believer agrees is a picture of the suffering of the Christ at the time of his death, we read, "He trusts in the LORD,” they say, “let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.” The very words spoken by the Jewish leaders standing around the cross. Then we are given this picture: I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me. My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.

You honestly believe that there's no Scriptural support for the suffering of Christ as portrayed in Mr. Gibson's movie? Just another day of picnic for Jesus, eh?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Another would be Veronica's veil.

Yes, another element drawn from the Stations of the Cross, not the creation of some crazy visionary as the earlier statement seemed to be saying, and nothing that's particularly critical to Catholic doctrine.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Hey guys, I looked at this movie for the first time over the w/e and it simply horrified me. Just checking to see if Mel Gibson used accurate info from the bible for everything in there?

I've seen the movie, and it is pretty accurate. Crucifixion was not a pretty sight. There is blood all over the place! Plus the beating and torture before the march to the place of the Skull (Golgotha). It is a Roman blood-sport, and the Romans tried to keep it bloody.

 

[Albion]

Gibson'sportrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not! The trial of Jesus, if there was one, was in name only. Jesus had challenged Roman political authority...Jesus must die.

Yet the Bible records that he was threatened--apparently successfully--by the Jewish mob who insinuated that they would go over his head to Rome if he ignored them by releasing Jesus. We even see Pilate trying to buy them off by offering them Barabbas. And all this is from the Bible record, not something "extra-Biblical."

 

[miamited]

Gibson'sportrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not! The trial of Jesus, if there was one, was in name only. Jesus had challenged Roman political authority...Jesus must die.

Hi jack,

And yet, the Scriptures tell us that Pilate didn't want to crucify Jesus. That he actually came up with a plan to stand Jesus and Barabbas out together and ask which one should be freed and pretty well assumed they'd pick Barabbas because he was murderer. Now, the movie wasn't intended to portray the entire life of Pilate. It was only intended to display that short little hour of his life when he confronted Jesus. So this claim that he once looted the temple isn't really anything that the movie was intended to portray or confront. The Scriptures tell us that Pilate's own wife told him that he shouldn't mess with Jesus.

Do you believe any of this that is contained within the Scriptures? Just because a man is a thief and an arrogant and murderous leader, doesn't mean that in the hour of his life that the Passion movie attempts to display, isn't fairly accurate. Just as the first king of Israel, Saul, a man, in his life, can have good moments and bad moments. The Scriptures tell us that Pilate was troubled about this man Jesus because his wife had told him of a vision that she had about him. You don't think that might make a murderous and arrogant leader take pause in how he treats the person portrayed in his wife's vision?

Now, I'm not about to say that the representation of the Passion of Jesus' crucifixion was spot on, but I don't think it was nearly as far off as you seem to be implying.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[RDKirk]

As to who we can blame for Jesus' death? We are told that it was the Jewish crowd, being agitated by the Jewish leaders, who called for Pilate to crucify him. The Scriptures tell us that it was Pilate's will that he be flogged and released, but the body of Jews in attendance made it impossible for him to stop there. So, while it was certainly Roman soldiers under the command of Pilate who actually nailed him to that cross, it seems to have been the responsibility of the crowd gathered at the time who prevented Jesus from merely being flogged and released.

I suspect the "Jewish crowd" was a packed house of people under the employ of the Jewish hierarchy.

First, the trial occurred on "Preparation Day" for Passover, when working people were concerned with making themselves righteous, not risking uncleanness in the vicinity of pagans.
Second, it occurred in the courtyard of the despised Roman governor, who did no working Jew any good.
Third, it was just another occasion of the Romans killing yet another Jew. Whether criminal or not, his crimes would have been against hated Rome.

I strongly doubt there were any working-class Jews in that courtyard except those who personally knew either Jesus or Bar-Abbas. But we do know that there were more than enough priests, scribes, guards, and others in the hierarchy--hundreds--who could have packed the courtyard on command.

 

[curious mike]

Hi mike,

Yes, Paul's writings make it all the most clear. In his letter to the Romans that we now separate as chapter 5, Paul wrote that Christ died for sin. Also that Christ died for us. God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Thanks for the explanation Ted. I think I am having trouble understanding if God himself had said he needed Jesus to die for us or if it was Paul and man's "opinion" that Jesus died for us?

 

[Albion]

I suspect the "Jewish crowd" was a packed house of people under the employ of the Jewish hierarchy.

Possibly...and MiamiTed acknowledged that. It speaks to the possible feelings of the average Jew in Palestine at that time, but not to anything that is inaccurate in the movie.

 

[RDKirk]

A small point I thought was rather neat in the movie:

Pilate begins questioning Jesus in Aramaic, but Jesus responds in Latin. Pilate appears surprised for a moment and then the conversation continues in Latin.

Did it really go that way? I dunno. But I thought it was a neat touch.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Among other things, an early scripture says something about a person's beard being torn out. In the movie they did not tear out His beard. And an early scripture says someone is so disfigured that we can not recognize him. In the movie His face is recognizable.

You're picking nits. If they put a mask on the actor to make him unrecognizable, Jim Caviezel (the actor) would be upset. You have to be able to see the actor, so that you know it is Jesus on the Cross, and not a dummy. Same thing with the beard. You have to allow Hollywood and Mel Gibson some poetic freedom.

Besides, if you showed every detail of every beating, then you would have people puking in the aisles.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I'm not a Catholic, but I know Mel Gibson is and that some scenes are drawn from Catholic tradition.

Which things, exactly, are extrabiblical?

 

[JackRT]

Do you believe any of this that is contained within the Scriptures?

I believe that the Gospels are an interpretive narrative that may or may not correspond to the actual details of history.

 

[Monk Brendan]

As to who we can blame for Jesus' death? We are told that it was the Jewish crowd, being agitated by the Jewish leaders, who called for Pilate to crucify him. The Scriptures tell us that it was Pilate's will that he be flogged and released, but the body of Jews in attendance made it impossible for him to stop there. So, while it was certainly Roman soldiers under the command of Pilate who actually nailed him to that cross, it seems to have been the responsibility of the crowd gathered at the time who prevented Jesus from merely being flogged and released.

Ted, it wasn't the Jews OR the Romans that crucified Christ. WE are the ones responsible. Remember that ALL have sinned.

 

[FireDragon76]

JackRT's critique rests on the assumption that Jesus was primarily a political revolutionary.

Jesus was a religious revolutionary and in that day and age, that had political implications. The Jewish religious elders and the Roman state had a complicit relationship, they had for some time.

 

[JackRT]

A small point I thought was rather neat in the movie:

Pilate begins questioning Jesus in Aramaic, but Jesus responds in Latin. Pilate appears surprised for a moment and then the conversation continues in Latin.

Did it really go that way? I dunno. But I thought it was a neat touch.

Yes that was an interesting scene. Aramaic was the language of the common people and Greek was the "lingua franca" but Latin was little used except in the military and diplomatic reports and of course in Italia. I would put this down as a Gibson flourish.