Scholars: Crucifixion Portrayal Inaccurate

AP News ^ | Feb 19th,2004 | PETER ENAV

[billbears]

After all, Mohammad and his disciples have a slightly different view.

Not sure I really care what a child molester and the followers of a 3000 year old tribal moon god think about it. By that premise all of the Bible could be views on history from a different perspective instead of actual history. I'm sure there are some Christ didn't die and raise again from the dead as He promised. That it was just some sort of story

[redgolum]

I read in Biblical Archeology Review a few years ago that a grave of a crucified man had been discovered with the remains of a wooden "washer" for exactly the purposed you stated.

[ZULU]

"is truly not the killing of Jesus's human body that is the central point of faith it is the resurrection that is the focal point of Christianity."

Then why is 1 1/2 hours of the film concerned with his death and only about 15 seconds with the Resurrection.

By the way, I agree with you.

[ZULU]

Wasn't Crossan defrocked for his wierd views on Christianity?

If not, he should have been.

[ZULU]

If you think reading about it is so awful, don't watch the movie - its worse.

If you want to support Gibson, buy the ticket, skip the flick, wait until it comes out on disc, and skip through the worst parts.

That's what I intend to do.

[ZULU]

They have recovered skeletal remains of victims who were crucified. They used nails.

[The Grim Freeper]

What about when Jesus appeared to the doubting Thomas and told him to touch the holes in his hands. Hello?

[ZULU]

Crossan is an idiot. He sees what he wants to see.

[The Grim Freeper]

Yikes. I just saw your post. Great minds...

[billbears]

Isaiah 53
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Not hung by rope but pierced. The Old Testament provides more than a few prophecies about this

[billbears]

They are all messengers of the same god, but have quite different messages

Hmmm, afraid not. Jehovah God is not the same as the god of the Muslims. As much as George Bush may want to believe that, it's not the case

[ZULU]

Cheir

[madison10]

Not sure if it means "crushed" in the physical sense...more like the spiritual sense with the weight of the world's sins on His shoulders. Still being beaten to a pulp would be "crushing" or more burden than one could bear.

[ZULU]

Its important to keep in mind that this movie represents Mel Gibson's interpretation of what happened. Not necessarily what actually occurred.

As anyone who saw "The Patriot" or "Braveheart" knows, Gibson makes films which are riveting and entertaining, but not necessarily historically accurate.

Having seen the outtakes, I noticed a number of historical inaccuracies and improbablities.

Christ probably didn't carry the entire cross. It would take a Charles Atlas - several of them - to lug an entire cross to Golgotha. The Upright portions were always there -like a gallows. The man to be executed carried just the cross-piece - a heavy enough timber, but one well within the realm of possibility.

The nails used to hold a person's arms on the structure were driven through the wrists, NOT through the palms as the film apparently portrays.

Pilate was a Roman Magistrate - a Civilian Official. He probably didn't wear armour, as he wasn't a military man.

The actors apparently are speaking Latin with an Italian accent, as Pilate says "Ecce Homo" and its pronounced by him as "Echay Homo" A Roman of the period would have pronounced it as though it was "Ekkay Homo" The "ch" sound was not found in classical Latin. It crept into the pronounciation of Ecclesiatical or Church Latin in the Middle Ages.

The soldiers portrayed escorting Christ in the film are carrying pila. The Pilum was a throwing weapon designed for field combat, not guard duty. The head of the pilum was made of hardened metal and the metal shaft below it, joining it to the main wooden portion, was NOT hardened. The purpose of this was to cause the pilum shaft to bend upon striking an enemy shield, armour, or the ground, so it couldn't be thrown back at the Roman forces. Thus it made a poor thrusting weapon, which was what a soldier on guard duty needed. More probably Roman guards or sentries used a lancea or hasta - a more typical spear or lance-like weapon designed for stabbing, not throwing.

When you see the film, notiuce if the "v" in Latin was pronounced like our "v". If so, that's another error. "V" in classical Latin was pronounced like our "w".

Finally, note if the soldiers on guard duty have a scutum - the characteristic rectangular shield used by the Romans. If they do, tht's probably another inaccuracy. Roman soldiers were not allowed to used scuta on guard duty. They had a habit of using them to prop themselves up and then fall asleep.

Finally, I can't recall reading about a snake in the Gospels, that was back in Genesis.

Gibson, as he admits, is not a historian, but there are enough Roman History buffs and Classical scholars out there he could have consulted, unless, as with the red-coated Tarletons' legions in the Patriot instead of the correct green coated troops, he was using artistic license, although I can't understand why here.

Finally, from what I saw of the film, it appeared to be REALLY violent and brutal and bloody, not that the event was not, but the degree of detail seemed to me to be excessively brutal.

[the lone haranguer]

He was crushed under the load of our sin. As some of the earlier posters pointed out, crucifixion meant a slow, agonizing death by exposure, dehydration, blood loss, and suffocation. Jesus died in about 6 hours. One poster states that his quick death was a result of the flogging. It's possible, I guess. My opinion is that if you assume sin is a corrupting and destroying influence, the load of every person's sin hastened the death of Jesus who was both True God and True Man. The sin hastened his demise, and threfore removed the need for breaking his legs, which would move the death along. His legs weren't broken which is also prophesied, in Isaiah, I think. It mentions that "not one of His bones will be broken." I think this corresponds to the Jewish traditions and laws surrounding Passover. The Passover lamb's bones were not to be broken or cut for the marrow.