PDA

View Full Version : Those that have seen it: What is so "historically accurate" about The Passion?


Checkmite
23rd March 2004, 10:03 AM
By all accounts I've heard, this movie is about as historically accurate as any historical epic Gibson had a part in - which is to say, not much.

So, if anyone is aware, where is all this "historical accuracy" people have been touting coming from?

Suezoled
23rd March 2004, 10:06 AM
Water was put in stuff called "cups" back then.. oh wait. Hm.. Roads were made of stone or dirt... oh wait. Trees grew out of the ground and so did gra- dang this is harder than I thought it would be.

Although I was told the latin was very good and accurate

El Greco
23rd March 2004, 10:21 AM
IIRC, in every other JC movie the inscription on the cross was written in Greek (INBI), but here it was in Latin or Aramaic... Next thing, they'll have it in Chinese.

evildave
23rd March 2004, 10:22 AM
It portrays the shooting of the movie, at least those portions that made it through the editing stage.

So it accurtely portrays:

1. Some of the film shoot from the perspective of cameras active at the time.

2. The musical performance.

3. The foley and make-up.

4. The other special effects.

At least, that of these elements that didn't end up on the cutting room floor, so to speak.

So, it's at least as historically accurate as other hollywood productions.

Skeptical Greg
23rd March 2004, 10:41 AM
I understand that it didn't look like anyone, except maybe Pontius Pilate, had taken a bath or had a haircut recently.. That seems to be pretty accurate..

Abdul Alhazred
23rd March 2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
By all accounts I've heard, this movie is about as historically accurate as any historical epic Gibson had a part in - which is to say, not much.

So, if anyone is aware, where is all this "historical accuracy" people have been touting coming from?

I've seen it. It's brutal. Historically accurate?

As movies made from existing books go, I'd say it follows its book better than most movies follow theirs. Though of course there's a bit of extra "business" and so forth.

Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin. No Greek? The New Testament was written in Greek.

Abdul Alhazred
23rd March 2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes
I understand that it didn't look like anyone, except maybe Pontius Pilate, had taken a bath or had a haircut recently.. That seems to be pretty accurate..

I disagree. Romans bathed for aethetic reasons, but Jews bathed as a religious obligation.

This isn't Christians in medieval Europe we're talking about. :p

varwoche
23rd March 2004, 11:40 AM
I'd have to see the list of Mel's historical epics. I'll speculate in the meantime that Passion is the least historical, as it depicts people and events surrounding which there is not much of a historical record.

Sindai
23rd March 2004, 12:24 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure the Jews did have nasty "demons jumping out of shadows at night and then running off giggling" problems back then, so I guess that part was spot-on.

Actually, that was probably the coolest part of the movie. :D

whitefork
23rd March 2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by El Greco
IIRC, in every other JC movie the inscription on the cross was written in Greek (INBI), but here it was in Latin or Aramaic... Next thing, they'll have it in Chinese. B = Basileus or something like that?

I've only ever seen it as INRI (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum probably misspelled). Are the movies you've seen Greek productions?

El Greco
23rd March 2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Kullervo
B = Basileus or something like that?

I've only ever seen it as INRI (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum probably misspelled). Are the movies you've seen Greek productions?

Err... no, I don't know of any Greek productions about JC's life :) Maybe I've read INRI as INBI...

I googled and it seems that according to the gospels, the inscription was in 3 languages; Hebrew, Latin and Greek.

lifegazer
23rd March 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin. No Greek? The New Testament was written in Greek.
I was interested to know how you knew that. Do you have copies of the original transcripts?

Skeptical Greg
23rd March 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer

I was interested to know how you knew that. Do you have copies of the original transcripts?

How do you say ' google ' in Greek ..

Greek New Testament (http://website.lineone.net/~nt.in.greek/) The New Testament was originally written in Greek. It would probably have been easier to record Jesus' words in the Hebrew or Aramaic he used, but the writers of the NT wanted their message to be understood by as many people as possible, no matter what their cultural background. That meant writing in Greek rather than their native language because Alexander the Great had established Greek as the universal language of his empire – and that legacy still remained, even though the empire itself had fallen.

If you feel the author is lying, you might take it up with them...

Skeptical Greg
23rd March 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Sindai
Well, I'm pretty sure the Jews did have nasty "demons jumping out of shadows at night and then running off giggling" problems back then, so I guess that part was spot-on.

Actually, that was probably the coolest part of the movie. :D

I don't think they got to run around loose.. I believe they either had to posess someone or be confined to a swine..

So, no cigar there..

Abdul Alhazred
23rd March 2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer

I was interested to know how you knew that. Do you have copies of the original transcripts?

I don't understand the question. Are you claiming that the New Testament wasn't written in Greek?

Greek was the most widely known written language in the Roman Empire at the time. The NT wasn't translated into Latin until centuries later. As far as I know it was never translated into Classical Latin.

kedo1981
23rd March 2004, 06:05 PM
Jump-n Jesus on a pogo stick why is everybody missen the point of this movie?
It’s not meant to be historically accurate, to like, “history”; it’s historically accurate to Catholic dogma; which is a kiiiiiiind of history?? (wink-wink-nudge-nudge)

Abdul Alhazred
23rd March 2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by kedo1981
Jump-n Jesus on a pogo stick why is everybody missen the point of this movie?
It’s not meant to be historically accurate, to like, “history”; it’s historically accurate to Catholic dogma; which is a kiiiiiiind of history?? (wink-wink-nudge-nudge)

Even that would be an impressive accomplishment, given that the movie "works" artistically speaking.

By the way, can you really call Mel Gibson a Catholic? He thinks the Pope is a liberal heretic.

Gibson built a church on his own property without the hierarchy's permission and brought in a defrocked priest to say Mass in Latin.

Despite the "Catholic" touches, it's the Protestant Evangelical types who are touting this movie as the real deal.

The Pope is said to have liked the movie, but that's a pretty weak endorsement. No nihil obstat, no imprimatur.

ceo_esq
23rd March 2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Greek was the most widely known written language in the Roman Empire at the time. The NT wasn't translated into Latin until centuries later. As far as I know it was never translated into Classical Latin. The Vetus Latina was the Latin translation of the Bible before Jerome's Vulgate. It's quoted by Tertullian, so it presumably was in existence prior to the end of the 2nd century - probably not more than (roughly) 100 years after the original Greek New Testament texts appeared.

Besides the question of pronunciation, there's not much to differentiate Classical Latin from other written forms of Latin, except that ecclesiastical Latin generally borrows a few more terms from Greek. But any Latin translation of a Greek source such as the New Testament would probably do this to some extent. I think it would be fair to say that Vulgate is reasonably Classical, and the Vetus Latina certainly so.
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
The Pope is said to have liked the movie, but that's a pretty weak endorsement. No nihil obstat, no imprimatur.I'm not so sure. The mainstream Catholic establishment seems to be pretty supportive (http://www.catholicleague.org/Passion/passion.htm).

Abdul Alhazred
23rd March 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not so sure. The mainstream Catholic establishment seems to be pretty supportive (http://www.catholicleague.org/Passion/passion.htm).

Not an official Papal endorsement. Papal "infallibility" only applies when he explicitly states he is about to say something infallible. :D

c4ts
23rd March 2004, 09:46 PM
Religious mythology is a kind of opinion. Do not mistake opinion for fact.

lifegazer
24th March 2004, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I don't understand the question. Are you claiming that the New Testament wasn't written in Greek?

I'm making no claims. I just wondered how you knew which language the original transcripts of the new testament were written in. Do you have a link?

Skeptical Greg
24th March 2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by lifegazer

Do you have a link?

You were given one...

lifegazer
24th March 2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes


You were given one...
Okay thanks. Missed your post.

Abdul Alhazred
24th March 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm making no claims. I just wondered how you knew which language the original transcripts of the new testament were written in. Do you have a link?

I question the existence of any "original transcripts". Some group of people wrote what we now call the New Testament, and they wrote it in Greek.