jump to navigation

Scholars find fault in Gibson’s ‘Passion’: 2004-02-24

Posted by clype in Humanities, Intolerance.
trackback

melgibson.jpg
Mel Gibson's
portrayal of the final 12 hours of Jesus in his film 'The Passion of the Christ' has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.

Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furore among 'Jewish' groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan 'anti-Jewish' violence. Gibson, who has denied the film is 'Anti-Semitic', has said he consulted scholars, theologians, priests and spiritual writers before scripting the film with the aim of making Jesus's agony during the crucifixion appear as realistic as possible.

billygraham.jpg

Many 'Christians' see the film as bringing them closer to their religion. 'Evangelical Christian' preacher Billy Graham called the film 'a lifetime of sermons in one movie.'

Gibson, a traditionalist 'Roman Christian' was so determined to make the 25 million USD (13 million GBP) film which he funded himself that he had his characters speak in Latin and Aramaic. Experts say this was his first mistake as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus's time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by 'Jews'.

johndominiccrossan.jpg
'Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!' [Thus] exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the 'Roman Christian' De Paul University, Chicago, USA.

'I mean: in your dreams. It would have been Greek.'

Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite. Most Roman centurions in 'the Holy Land' spoke Greek rather than Latin, historians and archaeologists told Reuters [News Agency]. The mistakes, experts say, didn't stop with the wrong language, which Crossan — who speaks Latin — said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.

'He has a long-haired JesusJesus didn't have long hair', said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. '"Jewish" men back in antiquity did not have long hair.'

'The "Jewish" texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek,' said New York University's Lawrence Schiffman.

archoftitus.jpg
Frieze on 'Arch of Titus'

Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome's 'Arch of Titus', erected after Jerusalem was captured in 70CE to celebrate the victory, which shows 'Jewish' men with short hair taken into captivity. archoftitusdetail.jpg
Detail: Frieze on 'Arch of Titus'

Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.

Jewish Groups vs Gibson:

For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles. They say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus's last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.

'This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show,' Gibson told the US American television network ABC this month.

But Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's 'basic flaw'. The film begins not when Jesus enters Jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of 'Jews' but rather at night in a garden on the eve of 'the crucifixion' when he is arrested by the Romans after being betrayed by Judas Iscariot.

'Why did they need a traitor? Why did they need the night? Why didn't they grab him in the daytime?' Crossan asked.

'Because they did not want a riot,' he said, explaining that Jesus was immensely popular among his fellow "Jews", which is why the high priests and Romans felt threatened by him.

Those details, Crossan said, were absent in the film.

'The lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context,' he told Reuters [News Agency].

One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving "Jewish" priests. Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say an historical perspective is imperative.

'It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves,' said Fr.Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem.

The gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early 'Christians' felt it would be politically wise to 'soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating' the Romans who ruled over them.

'Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care two winks about executing another "Jew". He had killed so many before him', said McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.

Crucifiction was 'State Terror':

"Crucifixion" was a common punishment meted out by the Romans to rebellious "Jews" during Jesus's time. The Romans crucified so many "Jews"', said Zias, that 'eventually they ran out of crosses and they ran out of space'.

The depiction of 'the crucifixion' was the part of the film most riddled with errors for Zias, who studied the skeleton of a crucified 'Jewish' man from Jesus's time — the only remains ever found of a crucified victim from antiquity. Zias said Jesus would not have carried the entire cross to 'the crucifixion' as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever efficient Romans.

'Nobody was physically able to carry the thing (the entire cross). It weighed about 159 kg [350 USA lb]', Zias said. 'He (Jesus) carried the cross-beam, maximum.'

Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.

'"Crucifixion" was a form of state terror. They humiliated the crucified victim. Everybody was naked. Men, women and children,' Zias said.

Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.

'You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear.'

Brushing off criticism of inaccuracies, Gibson has said he found contradictory opinions among the experts he consulted.

'Since the experts cancelled each other out, I was thrown back on my own resources to weigh the different arguments and decide for myself,' Gibson said in one interview.

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: