Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 2 September 2004

Previous discussions may be found here:

Talk:The Passion of the Christ/Archive 1

"Details Not Found in the Gospels" section

I started this section and just revisited it, reinserting a few things that had been deleted by others and tightening up some wording. An unknown user above says "As part of the relentless campaign to discredit the movie for supposed "historical inaccuracies", someone created a dozen "not in the Gospels" bullet points and only 4 or 5 "yes this is right" points. It's actually the other way around. There are hundreds of details Mel Gibson copied exactly from the Gospel accounts. Far too numerous too mention. Why the one-sided comparison?" I think it's obvious that the majority of details will be from the Gospels, since they are the main source for the entire story. At the same time, it is particularly relevant to show where Gibson diverged from the sources. Gibson's convictions have been the object of intense debate and these details that come more from him than from ancient authorities can give a good window into his thinking... I restored the point on Mary Magdelene with better caveats. I also restored the point about the severity of the scourging. It was deleted by someone who merely said "Romans were known to do this"-- but that of course does not prove they did it in this case. JDG 19:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes. Considering that its supposed accuracy to the Gospels was part of its marketing, noting points it diverges on is entirely relevant - David Gerard 19:32, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Christian, and specifically Roman Catholic leaders' (as opposed to Aryan Christians) political alliances with Roman and other leaders during the dark ages was far more sinister than that of the Jewish religious leaders 1st Century occupied Isreal of the first century.

Jewish religious leaders of the occupied 1st Century capitol did hand Jesus over the the Romans, but that is nearly identical the the Catholic Inquisition act committed many times over when victims were "surrendered to the secular arm so their soul may be saved" i.e. handed over to civilian authorities for execution, often on a burning pier.

It is also worth noting that Mel Gibson believes the Sept. 11 attacks to have been remote controlled aircraft under command of the same Jewish plot his father alleges conspired with Freemasons to inspire Vatican II.

And the ADL on Gibson: " got classical anti-Semitic views. If he can say that there is a cabal out there of secular liberal Jews who are trying to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church, that's a classic anti-Semitic canard -- that Jews operate in cabals to get their way." (Abraham H. Foxman on CNSNews)

Mel Gibson on "New World Order" conspiracy: "Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it's Marxism, but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don't admit to it. Do it by stealth."

DontMessWithThis 21:17, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and curiously, the Nazis had thier own verison of Passion Play, that stirred anti-semetic feelings in preWWII Germany around 1936. The play was so provocative, audiences left the theater in search of Jews to attack.

Criminal punishment in context

Perhaps this article needs to put this man's crimes in context. Gibson is portraying a disorderly subversive from history as if he were some sort of world savior.

Wasn't flogging a routine punishment in those days for disorderly conduct? It seems fair - this Jesus character had been weilding a whip a few days earlier in the Temple when the nice merchants were just trying to help the people make sacrificial offerings during their annual religious celebration.

That part of the film and of Gibson's claims just don't make sense to me. How am I supposed to be responsible for this guy's outburst at a Jewish temple some 2,000 years ago? If he was blessed by some divine providence, why can't I just go down to my local Christian curio shop and start turning over tables and whipping the owner?

Then their court had to decide if flogging for disorderly was sufficient or if there had been treason. By prevailing US standards of this time, if he fought against the nation, it would be treason and he could be executed. His acts were found to be sufficiently treasonous to warrant execution. Again, how does that implicate me? The article might do well to explain how the film's plot is based on a premise that holds individuals today responsible for the behavior of a deposed monarch some 2,000 years ago.

The propaganda message of this film is the premise that he died for my sins and not for his own crimes. --eek!--A Mouse! 00:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? I mean, if you want to say "there never was a Jesus", you can say that, but if you've read the gospels at all, the one thing I don't think you can reasonably do is accept that they accurately depict Jesus and then say "yeah, he deserved to die". This is off-topic, I guess, but I am honestly baffled by the above. He claimed to be someone--you can decide for yourself if he claimed to be God or only the Messiah--not to be designing an overthrow or a revolution. You don't have to take him as your God, but I think suggesting that he was a treasonous assailant who deserved death is only going to make enemies here needlessly. I sure don't understand the above, anyway. Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No it is not sarcasm. He vandalized a religous site on a religous holiday. One didn't have to crash an aircraft into a tower in those days to commit treason, one mereley had to have the capacity to stir a crowd against forces armed with nothing but swords and spears.

The gospels were written by his followers, and even they described his activities as vandalism. What are the Pharisees supposed to do, say "oh, this vandal is okay, he is the Son of God." His tirade in the temple, no matter how much your preacher likes it, was a disorderly disruptive act. Gibson and the fundraising preachers would have us believe he was put on trial for his collective teachings. He was tried for stirring sedition in Jeruselum during a religious holiday, when seditious rallies stood a chance of swelling and overpowering Roman occupiers.

He was convicted under the laws of his time and was legally executed. It is not a matter of "yeh, he deserved to die." It is a matter in which treasonous people were routinely executed at that time and if a person acts like that in an environment like that, they are pretty much asking to be executed, which he plainly was. He intended to force his execution, by the way the story was told to me and by my read of the text. ---eek! A Mouse! 06:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flame bait and trolling

After a short review I can confidently describe 90% of this page as flame bait and trolling. I suggest you look elsewhere for intelligible or polite discourse. Sam Spade

I find your comments equally meaningless, and likewise condemn your motivation. DontMessWithThis 05:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Details in the film present in the Gospels

• Peter cuts off the ear of a man, when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus; and Jesus heals that man.
• After his arrest and delivery to the Temple, Jesus is slapped, punched and spat upon in the presence of the Sanhedrin before any trial is held. Both Matthew and Mark relate this.
• Pilate is reluctant to condemn Jesus to death. The Gospels unmistakably hint at this reluctance.

Apathy or ambivilance is not the same as reluctance. Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• The Last Supper is shown in the theologically right moment with the consecration Words of Jesus: "This is My Body, which is given up for you ...", so that it is clearly the first Mass advancing and representing the Sacrifice of Jesus next day (Good Friday).

Mass is in the Gospels? Good friday is in the gospels? Where are those terms? Are religions which don't have Mass or Good Friday not gospel based? (Misplaced Pages has protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses...)Ronabop 06:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• The seven words of Jesus on the cross, also entrusting holy Mary to John's care: "Woman, this is your son ! John, this is your mother!"

Uh, what translation are you using that indicates *John*? Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed this again. Please, give me a citation before putting it back in. Ronabop 06:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arrgh! John 19:26-27 never specifies John as the referenced apostle, period. Here's a sampling of the translations to peruse through, note that John is not specifically mentioned.

• New american standard: When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

• American standard: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own .

• Basic english bible: So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple who was dear to him, he said to his mother, Mother, there is your son! Then he said to the disciple, There is your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her to his house.

• Darby Version: Jesus therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then he says unto the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

• Douay Rheims: When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

• King James: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own .

• Websters: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

• World english: Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour, the disciple took her to his own home.

• Weymouth NT: So Jesus, seeing His mother, and seeing the disciple whom He loved standing near, said to His mother, "Behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that time the disciple received her into his own home.

• Young's literal: Jesus, therefore, having seen mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he was loving, he saith to his mother, 'Woman, lo, thy son;' afterward he saith to the disciple, 'Lo, thy mother;' and from that hour the disciple took her to his own .

Sure, it may be a religious tradition, but it's not in the gospels. Ronabop 02:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Details that are not present" section

Having this section, which is much shorter than the "details that are not present" section, is misleading. It gives the impression that Gibson based his movie more on Catherine than on the Gospels. Either show all of the hundreds of accurately depicted details, or none.

If I were to list from memory each of the film details which corresponded to a line of Gospel text, I bet I could come up with several dozen bullet items, like:

• Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane in the middle of the night.

Luke has him on the mount of olives when judas arrives, no day or night, but speaking to a crowd... the movie has him relatively solo. Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Garden of Gethsemane is on a slope of the Mount of Olives (yes, present tense: it's still there). JDG 20:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Jesus asks his three chief followers, Peter, James and John to "watch" (i.e., stay awake) while he prays.
• Jesus chides them for falling asleep instead.
• Soldiers come to arrest Jesus there.
• Judas identifies Jesus to the soldiers, by kissing his cheek (a pre-arranged signal).

Not according to MMLJ. Kiss is common, but cheek is not....

• Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of violating their religious tradition.
• The leaders bring Jesus to Pilate for punishment.
• Pilate finds no "cause" to put Jesus to death.
• Pilate offers the crowd a choice: release Jesus, or release another condemned prisoner in Jesus's place.
• Jesus is not merely tied to the cross, but nailed to it.
• Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, welcomed with palm leaves by the crowds.
• Jesus had worked as a carpenter.
• Jesus told Peter to his face, "Three times you will deny me." On the night of the Passion, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.
• Two thieves were crucified next to Jesus -- on the right and the left.
• The thief on the left criticized Jesus.
• The thief on the right confessed his own guilt, called Jesus blameless and asked Jesus to remember him.
• Jesus told the thief on the right, "Surely this day you will be with me in Paradise."
• The crucifixion took place on the top of a hill.
• The curtain in the temple was ripped (by unseen causes) after the crucifixion.

I could go on and on... --Uncle Ed 13:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure, you could, but the books themselves have inconsistencies. Anything missing from one account brings into question the accuracy of another account. When accounts contradict each other (denial 3x... when, how, and where?) as far as details go, asserting one as truth denies the others. Ronabop 10:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And people tend to "remember" things from the Gospels that aren't there (like which thief was on the right or left (not specified); like being "nailed" (not specified in the Gospels and only figuratively implied elsewhere). And tend to forget other things (both thieves mocked Christ in Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32, while only one does in Luke 23:43) -Nunh-huh 19:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Script and the topic of the movie

It is easy to generally form a script to conform to a single document, then to focus debate on the coherence of the script to the document, avoiding larger questions of the coherence of the documented mythology to the actual events.

In the case of this man, debate among Christians universally steers away from his guilt under the laws of the land where he lived. Execution of temple theives was fundamental precept of law in that region, having been "written in stone" some 1500 years earlier. While Babalonyian law did not prevail in Roman occupied Jeruselum, it does offer context for legal traditions of that time, with many edicts of the Messpotanian Code Of Hammurabi incorporated in Jewish law, such as the requirement for execution of false witnesses. Investigation might reveal Jewish law was influenced by time Jewish people spent as subjects of Babylon. More specifically to the matter of Jesus Christ's disorderly conduct in the main Jewish Temple during the main Jewish holiday, if his damage to merchant's property were considered a form of theft (deprivation of property) he would be executed under the anciet Babylonian Code of Laws. "If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death."

Even though he did not live under Bablylonian law, Jesus' threats to destroy the temple followed by actual attacks within the temple would seem to have had a very Babylonian ring to a people whose temple was last destroyed by Babylon at the onset of Jewish subjegation and removal under Babylonian law. That, to me, is the flaw of this supposedly historical film - it frames the debate squarely within the context of Christianized history and omits essential context that would allow a sympathetic appreciation of those portrayed as antagonists. DontMessWithThis 15:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mary's pebbles

Mary grasps and picks up pea sized pebbles, and drops walnut sized rocks. Anybody know if this is a film editing issue, or intentional?

I thought it was far too blatant to be unintentional. Keep in mind that the movie was supposed to be released without subtitles, so visual continuity was paramount. Ronabop 10:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Judas Suicide is in Gospels

Hey 152.163.252.98, why do you keep changing the "Details in the film not present in the Gospels" point about Judas? You keep changing "The Gospels merely state that Judas fell into great mental pain and comitted suicide" to "The Gospels merely imply...". They don't imply, they state. Matthew 27-5: "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."...

Well, that's only in translations of Matthew, a (one) gospel. Note the omission of such a statement in the other 3 Gospels, (which seems odd, if it is an item of magnitude)... Or just compare translations. Young's literal translation, for example, is "and having cast down the silverlings in the sanctuary, he departed, and having gone away, he did strangle himself." While I'm not 152.163.252.98, I can see the point (did he tie a rope around his throat, onto a wild horse, and spook the horse, did he fall down while grieving, and crush his windpipe?) . Also, compare with Acts (1:18, for example) and other accounts of him keeping the money, to buy a field. (Acts is certainly not in the Gospels, but maybe the section should be renamed, or another section should be added for "Details contradicted in the rest of the new testament", or "Details of the Film and Scriptual Debate"). Ronabop 08:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You also keep insisting the personification of Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane is "theologically accurate"-- theologically accurate or not, nothing like it is in the Gospels and that is what this section is about. The phrase "some believe this is in the spirit of the scriptures" already covers your point.JDG 07:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your saying that it is nowhere in the Gospels leads one to believe that it is something Gibsom pulled out of his ass; hence the additional words as to the orthodoxy of the imagery. (BTW, you keep insisting that Jesus's shoulder was dislocated, but no doctor was shown making that diagnosis in the film. One sees a Roman guard pulling hard on his arm to line up his hand with the nail hole, and that's it.)

I guess you missed the deafening crack that accompanied the rope pulling. JDG

Just curious

If we're going to post all the the things about how people reacted negatively to this movie, are we going to post the fact that the movie may have caused a murderer to confess? Just wondering... :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:35, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rearrange?

Three of the 10 "reaction" sub-sections are about the anti-Semitism controversy. I propose forming a new section entitled "Anti-Semitism". --Uncle Ed 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're right, the article does ramble somewhat--more hierarchy in the sections would help. Opus33 15:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Venerable?

Is it POV to say "venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich"? I know Catholics venerate her, but I'm presuming the rest do not.

dictionary.com gives these two definitions for "venerable":

• Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position.
• Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.

I suppose she might be venerable by the first definition, but in context it would seem the second is intended. I would say even the first is POV; who decided she commanded respect? and/or Who decided she was worthy of reverence? Jdavidb 13:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She was, by a Roman Catholic decree of 24 April 2001, awarded the degree of heroic virtue (Decretum super virtutibus), with which she has been granted by Church practice the title "Venerable". Using the term to refer to her doesn't seem to be much more "POV" than use of the term "Reverend" for those given titles by other denominations, but if you feel you want to attribute it, you now have the needed information. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Receiving an honorific title from the RCC does not justify using it here, which BTW, would mean that is is to be capitalized. The use of honorifics and beatifics is anachronistic; when was the last time any of us saw a saint's name used with his/her honorific title in common usage? In addition, non-RCCs are unfamiliar with the idea and use of honorific or beatific titles. It's use here is confusing, uncommon, and very outdated. --FM 06:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed a 'letter to the editor', signed but with no context. DJ Clayworth 20:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A Train Wreck?

I remember seeing this film back when it first came out. When asked to describe the film, the best I way I could describe the film was that it was kind of like watching a train wreck. I couldn't bear to watch Christ getting the life beaten out of him, but at the same time I couldn't turn away. It was so violent, that on Feb 27th of this year Mark Savlov of the Austin Chronicle said that it almost became "The Greatest Snuff Film Ever Made." That's probably an accurate way to describe this film.

One thing that I fear traditional Catholics focus on to almost the exclusion of everything else is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As the Nicene Creed says: "He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried." But it seems to me that some Catholics have forgotten that what follows is "And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures."

JesseG 01:35, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Heart attacks

If you consider how many people have seen the film and what the population average rate of heart attack is, you will find that quite a few people can be expected to have died during the movie just by chance. So listing two of them is rather pointless and says nothing at all about the movie. --Zero 14:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph about the aostolic tradition

I moved this paragraph from the article here to Talk. It seems to me that this article isn't about Catholic theology and the apostolic tradition. Rather, the material below would be better for a new article on the many, many movies and plays based on the New Testament, and how Christians approach such films and plays in general. RK 22:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Without touching the question of the veracity of her descriptions, for Traditionalist Catholics like Gibson it is not necessary to have all details of the film in the Bible because the final revelation of God is taken from both the Bible and the oral Apostolic Tradition (till the death of the last Apostle). The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, however, are not considered part of the oral Apostolic Tradition and aren't something that Catholics must accept as true lest they be outside the faith; Catholics are free to accept or not accept her visions. Details beyond primary textual sources are to be expected in dramatizations of historical events, but the trend and tenor of non-source material can assist in understanding the general tendencies of the creators.