Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My (long) Passion Review

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 10:55 PM
Original message
My (long) Passion Review
I saw Passion earlier today with my 13 y/o daughter 16 y/o son and wife. I am a "backslid" Christian who was raised very religious. I prepared for the movie by rereading the crucification accounts in all 4 books and talking with my kids. Of late on this MB I have been compelled to stand up for good Christians and waged a respectful Mess. Board debate against people here in defense of Christians... who I think are overly harshly judged on this board.. not to say that is completely without cause... but it is how I see it. Not all Christians are "fundies" out to inflict their rw views on others.. some are simply Christian because they believe the only way to God is through Jesus... I am in the later category. I don't care what others do.

The movie begins in the Mt of Olives after the last supper. I found the opening 20-25 mins less than compelling. Gibson took artistic liberty in showing his view of what he thought Jesus went through during prayer while the disciples slept. I suppose it could have been the way Gibson presents it.. it could have been any number of things. The mob and soldiers showed up after the accurate berating of his disciples for falling asleep instead of watching over him... it stayed accurate aside from tossing him over a bridge .. I think Gibson tried to tell a good story... the crucification in the bible is actually only a few versus in each of the four books.. so I guess if he stuck to the "script" the movie would have lasted 25 minutes. He filled in the blanks. I think his "blank" time would have been better spent on more teachings of Jesus and less violence.. I would have enjoyed the movie better personnally... One thing for sure, if you're not a Christian before this movie, you wont be after it. Had they showed some teaching.. perhaps some would consider taking a look at Jesus in the bible.

It is hard for me to put this review to words to express accurately what I mean... I wish I were more articulate. There was the trial before the High Priests and then dragging him before Pilot. From the time the soldiers/mob arrest him.. they never stop punching, beating, and spitting on him. This is accurate bibliclly... but it was different to actually see it. The bible is clear they smote, spit, and mocked him.. but as it is one sentence it the bible.. you don't really consider that it was so vicious or lasted so long. I think Mels version of this was more true than the sanitary versions of the Crucification in other movies and it accurately reflects what the bible means.

I think from here out I will just address different aspects:

Pilate: I think Pilate's portrayal was biblically accurate... Pilate did not want to execute Jesus.. and even after the scourging offered to let him go... hoping the scourging would appease the mob and high priests. As it was in the bible, it did not appease the mob. Pilate's judging of Jesus was accurate... some license in expressing that.. but it is clear in scripture both Pilate and his wife felt Jesus was just. I think Pilate's portrayal overall was perfect. Pilates wife was overtly sympathetic as in the bible.

The scourging: I studied scourging before the movie. A scourging is indeed a horrible thing.. It was a grotesque thing to actually watch.. more grotesque was looking at his torn body through the rest of the movie... I did seem to get numb about this... if only for the fact you couldn't watch the movie anymore if you allowed yourself to become grossed out. It was quite sickening and disturbing.

One problem I have with the scourging was the cartoonish way he presented the Roman Soldiers. As a history buff, I know the Roman Army was a professional disciplined army. This is the sole reason they were so successful in a time when it was sword against sword. Romans were professional soldiers... Furthermore, from my understanding of executioners (and even to this day if you read about Saudi's current guy) they are professionals in what they do. I think the scourging would have been handled in a "professional" manner.. by soldiers assigned and trained to do this task... not by a bunch of laughing idiotic buffoons. I think Gibson has been influenced by Hollywood in his portrayal of the Roman Army.. and not by the history of this army. Although it is clear in scripture the Roman Soldiers mocked him, etc... I still found their portrayal as cartoonish and inaccurate.

Jews: Before the movie I was very skeptical about the Jewish community being up in arms. The fact is.. it is the Jews in the mob and High Priest who wanted and cried for his execution even after the scourging... so I felt they were expressing a type of sour grapes. In the movie IMO there is indeed something about the Jews that .. as with the Romans, makes many of them like babbling toothless idiotic buffoons. That said.. the High Priests were portrayed very good. I think Italians should be more pissed than the Jews.. I definitely can see why the the Jewish community is offended. Certain people in the crowd.. etc.. hard to put your finger on exactly.. nothing overt.. but it does seem like Gibson never missed an opportunity to present some mindless Jewish guy babbling about... This is not in the bible.. so the fact he added it in could be seen as offensive. Even kids taunting Judas.. etc.. Those offended by the fact that it was the Jews calling for the execution.. well I don't have much sympathy for that for it is as it was.... as they say. But the "extras" .. Yep, Mel overdid it.

He had a great portrayal of Herod... but I doubt Herod has a bunch of slobbering fools laying about his feet he would need to kick out of the way when he walked... stuff like that... Mels Herod account was accurate according to the book of Luke. After seeing it, I can see empathize with why the Jewish community is sensitive to this move.

Ending, Crucification, etc: I think Barabbas was overdone as disgusting looking... you can be a murderer and thief without looking the way Barabbas did. I think Mels license was meant to express "this mob would have released ANY person into the community rather than Jesus". I highly doubt Barabbas was anything but normal in appearance... his crimes aside. And as Barabbas was fairly popular to begin with, inciting a revolt, etc.. It was an inaccurate portrayal IMO. This Barabbas would not have inciting anything in anyone at any time in history.. save maybe to smote the hell out of him or run as he approached you. The ending of the movie, other than Barabbas' appearance.. seemed pretty accurate according to the scripture... the crow nipping at the one thief who would not repent aside. It is clear Jesus succumbed so quickly on the cross due to the torture inflicted upon him. I wish he showed more of the resurrection which is very brief.

Mary was strong... I thought her charcter perfect. As my wife said on the way home.. the way to avoid crying is not to look at it through Mary's eyes. This is true... one can only imagine what she went through.

The subtitles did not bother me or my family. It makes it more real.

Atmosphere Sunday morning was a good time to see the movie as the crowd was average size.. I did hear some crying and gasps.. etc.. but I did not cry, nor my wife, nor kids. I did not hear anything antisemitic said. The movie was powerful.. but I must say.. I was more shaken after seeing Saving Private Ryan.. which was very touching and violent at the same time. SPR still remains the movie that upon seeing it the first time in a theater affected most... Passion is second. I needed down time and in fact have actually slept until posting this... and I saw it this morning. If I had to describe in 3 words it would be Powerful, Gripping, and Grotesque. I was not stuck in my seat after the movie as I've heard others report.. quite the opposite.. I wanted out to smoke a cig the second I saw the words.

I did like the movie. For agnostics and other faiths.. I can see why they would leave the theater feeling like they just watched a two hour senseless torture session. For Jews I can see why some may feel slighted. If I were Italian I may also had some offense as well. For Christians, it makes you realize what Jesus went through for all of us and you leave the theater silently thanking him and with a better understanding of his love. Thats how I see it anyway.

I would give it 4 out of 5 stars and if I could I would thank Mel Gibson for making it, I would. He has a well rounded biblical vision.. I hope he puts that vision to good use on some less than violent parts of Jesus' life or other biblical stories. If he does, I will be there money in hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mourningdove92 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent review, zwae.
I saw the movie Friday night. I agree with many of your points, especially about Barrabas, and most especially about Mary. Her portrayal was, as you said, perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muffin_man Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sounded articulate to me.
One of the more balanced criticisms I've seen on DU in regard to The Passion.I don't think any movie based on history can be completely "historically accurate" and be compelling on screen.Heck really every movie/story is edited and such to reflect the artist's interpretation. As far as the anti-Semitic I can't say I have not seen the movie but I think Jesus said something like" I give my life freely no man takes it"? Anyone who can blame the Jews is just a savage. BTW I like Mel's movies! If I boycotted everyone I disagreed with I would have to settle for watching grass grow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottcsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. Jesus blames the Jews
The writer of John has Jesus say the following to Pilate:
John 19, verse 11:

"Jesus answered, 'Thou coudest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he who delivered me unto thee hath the greatest sin.'"

Who delivered Jesus to Pilate? The Jews.

Jesus is absolving Pilate, and the Romans, of culpability in killing him. No, the blame rests entirely on the shoulders of the Jews.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. Actually, that line of Jesus...
...is directed at Caiaphas (note the singular tense) and not "the Jews" as a whole.

Anyway, the Gospel of John is widely considered the least historically-accurate of the four. And the author sure doesn't seem to like the udaioi (a Greek term that could either mean "Jews" or "Judeans" -- i.e. people of the southern kingdom in general or those with power in Jerusalem in particular).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. wow... great review. You certainly did your homework
great job and thanks for sharing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dob Bole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good review. And if you feel that you are "backslid"...
I have a really good book suggestion that helped me out before. It's called "What's so Amazing About Grace?" by Philip Yancey. You should be able to find it in any bookstore, and it's very well written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Profoundly disturbing review.
My word. I have no idea of the movie because I don't watch bloody torture scenes in any movie so I won't be watching this. Nor will I ever, it seems, understand Christians because none of my religious experiences have depended on torture of anyone.

But I can comment on this review. "Slighted." Slighted? I'm stunned. The reviewer thinks the Italians should feel "some offense as well." As well? The Italians are probably unoffended because no one is expected to see this movie and attack a pizza parlor. Not one person on this earth is afraid that Italians may die because someone saw this movie.

The Jews can't say the same. This is a very popular film. It's going all over the world with subtitles in every possible language. And the bloodguilt scene was not cut. The translation did not appear in the English language version, but the Aramaic is intact. So it will be translated in the other versions.

And then it's waiting for the other shoe to drop. But the reviewer probably never heard my grandmother's description of fleeing a pogrom. Or lost a single family member to religious hatred.

Slighted? Nah. But if Mel's father is so sure he knows where the Jews went who didn't die in any "holocaust," I wish he'd let me know where they are, because my people are still missing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muffin_man Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I have hard time making the connection that
1.People who see the movie and are not already anti-Semitic will become anti-Semitic.If they see the movie then more than likely they already know the story.
2.That anti-Semites will get a "push" from this movie that causes them to harm Jews.

Just like any other hate group or person who would harm someone due to their ethnicity they don't need a movie to do that. If I am misled please inform me of that,but please try to do it civily I mean no disrespect just want a discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lagniappe Donating Member (228 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Excellent review.
I agree with a lot of your points.

I'm on the fence as far as my faith is concerned. I have some problems with parts of the Bible, but I also have problems with atheism. So I'm not sure how I would characterize myself as far as my faith goes. However, unlike many on DU, I really like and respect most of the Christians that I know (yeah, there's a small minority in any group that ruin it for everybody).

I thought that the movie was good, but I think it could have been great.

Going into the movie, I assumed that the subtitles would detract from the experience. However, I now think it was a brilliant decision on Gibson's part.

I did not think that the flogging and crucifixion scenes were overdone. The crucifixion was an intense scene. However, it was no more intense than, say, some scenes in Saving Private Ryan or Braveheart.

I can understand why Jews might find this movie is offensive, however I don't think it was anti-semitic. The Jewish priests were definitely portrayed as evil, and I think it is unfortunate that Gibson portrayed Pilate as a guy with a conscience. Pilate was just as guilty and ruthless and should have been characterized as such.

I would have given the movie 5 out of 5 if more emphasis had been placed on the character of Jesus and his teachings. If you are not a Christian, then you only see some guy getting brutally murdered – and for what? You have no empathy nor attachment to Jesus. You don't appreciate the injustice that is being done. You don't appreciate the sacrifice that Jesus is making. However, I really liked the two scenes (should have been more) that flashed back to Jesus teaching 'live by the sword, die by the sword' and 'love your enemy'. I thought it was especially relevant for today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. So...
"Mel overdid it."

He did about everything he could that wouldn't absolutely get him branded an anti-Semite. It's all in the artistic liscence.

I saw it. I'm Jewish. I think it's just about as close to the anti-Semitism line as you can get without crossing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottcsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I think he crossed it for two hours seven minutes
I'm waiting for Gibson to start filming "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." It seems a natural follow-up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. For cynical and aquart...
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 12:04 AM by zwade
I tried to express my true empathy for Jewish concerns on this movie. I went in fully aware of this concern.. and watched closely. Youre community has everyright to raise those concerns.. doing so will help mitigate any problem and increase sensitivity I think. As with me, I went in already sensitive to the concerns.. and so perhaps saw things I and others wouldnt have even noticed otherwise... in other words.. before I went in, I knew I would be writing a review here at DU.. and wanted to make sure I watched closely with an eye towards how the Jewish community may perceive it.

It is quite possible some KKK type here or in europe or somewhere will hurt someone Jewish over this movie... this is true anyday.. movie or no movie. Who can say what sets these types off? This movie will not take an otherwise good person and turn them antisemitic or cause them to go and attack someone... thats my opinon.

This is not going to lead into some uprising IMO.. this movie will pass... I cant really imagine someone even going to see it twice... once is sufficient. I'll own the DVD.. but unline S.Pvt Ryan.. i doubt I'll watch it over and over... in fact I'm sure I wont. This movie presents a moment in time for Christians that is most important.. and is the most accurate portrayal thus far.

Hmmm... I dont think I can really debate this point with you.. I'm still kinda stunned.. I do empathize with the Jewish Community. I'll just leave it at that. I called it like I saw it as honestly as I could. I wouldnt recommend this movie to anyone who didnt want to see it.. as I would some other movies that concerns were being expressed over. There's enough info about this movie all over the net and news to make your own decision..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I agree it won't lead to an uprising,
what it will get you is alot of anti-semitic snide remarks. Bottomline, this movie doesn't do a good job of promoting Christianity and it doesn't lend any positive light onto Judiasm and really perhaps created animosity.

Gibson took alot of liberties with the history too. There were 2 big one's that even I as someone who honestly isn't really a scholar noticed. Jesus carried his entire cross, not just the crossbeam like he actually would have. Jesus would have been crucfied through the wrists instead of the palms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Could be...
On carrying the cross... The bible says Simon carried his cross for Jesus.. It doesnt say he carried "part" of the cross... or just the cross beam. Its says cross.. Mat 27 32

On crucifications... this is certainly how Christ is presented in the Christian Faith... that is how it has been and always will be presented. That point you have made is made by historical scholars and can be verified by reading various historical accounts of Crucifictions... for the movie.. I do not think Gibson needed to depart from what is already generally accepted in the Chrisitan community. I dont think the point of the movie was to present a view outside the realm of what is previously understood lacking biblical evidence otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. The Christian Faith is exactly continuous from the Resurrection on.
I think that Mel should have understood in dealing with something sensitive like this that it would be best to maintain some level of historical veracity. Furthermore, the other two convicts only carry the crossbeam in the movie. Special treatment, I think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottcsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Just wait till it hits Europe
They still hate Jews in Europe, especially in France. This movie is just going to reinforce anti-Jewish attitudes. Christians fail to grasp this important point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. a little generalisation there surely
"they" don't hate anyone in Europe - some fuckwits hate jews NOT all or even most Europeans, many Europeans ARE Jewish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottcsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Believe it
http://tinyurl.com/39b83
(Link goes to ADL 2003 report on anti-Semitism; it's a long list).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. no thanks
I'll agree to "beleive" if you change "they" to "some of them" I'm not big on oversimplified and over generalised arguments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. I think the violence in this movie
Was so over the top, that it reached the point of being sickeningly absurd. Jesus shed more blood at the flogging than there is in the human body. Did you see those pools of blood that the two Mary's were sopping up with towels afterwards?

Mel definitely brought his Braveheart sensibilities to this film starting with Jesus getting thrown off a bridge on the way to the temple, and ending with a crow pecking out the eye of one of the thieves on the cross, and Jesus getting dropped on his face while nailed to the cross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Is there any basis actually for the falling off the bridge and
getting dropped on his face? Or is that just Mel trying to make us look more brutal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Its irrelevent anyway cynical..
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 12:23 AM by zwade
as it was the romans dropping him from the bridge and putting him on the cross... not the jews..

but to answer your question.. there is no basis for it.. they never dropped him on his face.. they turned the cross over to break off the nails on the other side, but he was above ground... maybe they did do this? I dont know.. but neither is in the bible in any case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. So Mel is falsly creating Jewish and Roman brutality to Christ,
at the same time he's trying to do a biblical version, excluding much historical evidence.

If you don't see the motive behind this, I don't know what to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Maybe he had motive..
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 12:34 AM by zwade
Maybe he didnt... I think it was presented as it was in all its brutality.. how can you have a nice scourging and crucification of a man? Any man? This was a brutal event. I'm not concerned with if he has some secret ulterior motive.. I went for myself and my faith. There are any number of events in the old test. that could be equally considered disgusting... I think you said you were jewish.. so you know as well as I that the bible is not all love and flowers. It is violent some places, profound others, boring others, etc... This is but 4 chapters.. one in each of the 4 first books.. but this event changed the world... there can be no doubt about that. This man Jesus, and his death, whether you believe in him or not.. the account of his death was monumental in its results.. it had to be equal to that task IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Yeah, the bible isn't very rosy.
But there's a difference between using artistic liscence to exaggerate the violence and censoring out stuff to make it acceptable. I would suggest that Mel doesn't need to censor anything but at the same time he shouldn't be using artistic liscence to excerbate the possibility for anti-Semitic fallout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. where his dad fits in
Mel has repeatedly stated that he follows the "christianity" that his Dad taught him, given his Dad's highly insane and offensive remarks re the Holocaust you do HAVE to wonder what other beliefs of his Dad's seeped through.

Mel could go a long way to overcoming accusations of anti-semitism by denouncing his Dad's beliefs, he doesn't have to denounce his father just say loudly and clearly "The Nazi's systematically murdered more than 6 million people because and only because they were Jewish, I love my Dad but beleive he is VERY wrong and hurtful on this" why would that be disrespectful to his dad - although if one of my parents went about publically ranting about the jews "just leaving" 1930's Europe I'd try to have them sectioned under the mental health act, I don't know if I could sit around the family table with someone who thought something like that.

The fact that Mel will not publically disagree with dear old nutjob dad leaves a bad taste for me - it's not the sins of the father, but the refusal to condemn the SIN (not the father) that I have a problem with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. No, it was the Jewish temple guards
Who dropped him from the bridge and were pummeling him en route to his questioning before Caiaphas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
21. An exceptionally powerful review
Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottcsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. About Pilate
History's account of Pilate is very different than the account of Pilate in the bible. History does not show a compassionate, caring ruler wracked with indecision. History shows a savage tyrant, a ruler who uses deadly force to quell uprisings. In 36 CE, Pilate was responsible for the deaths of thousands to stop an uprising by Samaritans. He was so brutal that Pilate was recalled to Rome for his actions.

Pilate cared little for the traditions of the Jews under his rule. For instance, he stole Temple funds to build an aqueduct, and was known to display Roman battle standards in Jerusalem; the Roman battle standards were considered to be minor deities in the Roman religion. Displaying them where Jews lived would have caused great distress among the Jewish population, as viewing the battle standards would have been in violation of the first commandment.

The Pilate of the Gospels is a fiction. Understand that the writers of the New Testament lived under Roman rule, and they painted as positive a portrait of Pilate as they could. By no stretch of the imagination would the Pilate of history allowed a mob of Jews to convince him to carry out an execution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Not to mention
In the 4th century, christianity came under imperial protection as Constantine made it the official religion of the empire. From then on, christianity had a vested interest in casting Rome in the most favorable light possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Check out a previous post of mine...
...for my theory about Pilate. Yes, I think that he wanted Jesus dead from the start and was determined to sentence him to the Cross. Most likely, the Temple priests (whose appointments, after all, had to be "rubber-stamped" by him) were doing his explicit or implicit bidding by arresting Jesus and holding a "kangaroo court" (as I understand it, breaking their own law's provisions on how a trial was to be held) so that he could be turned over to the Romans.

However...Jerusalem was full of pilgrims at that time of year, and Pilate did not know how many of them were sympathizers of Jesus and his movement. A Roman capture and execution of Jesus might cause a riot that, due to the size of the crowd, might overwhelm the regular divisions of Roman soldiers that would have been more than enough to crush any uprising in normal times. So Pilate (being clever as well as bloodthirsty) set the priests up. Instead of sending Roman legionnaires to arrest Jesus, he had his puppet priestly administration do the deed with Jewish guard themselves. Then, when it came time for him to hold a perfunctory hearing and order the execution, he instead put on a big act of not wanting to kill Jesus, and essentially made the priests argue for what he wanted to do in the first place, with the point that, eventually, he would "give in" to their demands. That way, should the followers of Jesus be more numerous among the pilgrims than estimated, and a rebellion broke out, the Roman administration could say "Don't blame us -- our governor tried to save him, but it was your own priests who wanted him dead, and who pressured us until we washed our hands of the whole thing!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC