Now that it’s out, has anyone seen The Passion of The Christ? Can you comment for us on the historicalness (outside of quoting scripture)? Was it actually pronounced in classical Latin, not church-Latin? Any first-century early-christianity historians here? I’m just looking for some good discussion on the movie, that’s not just pro- and anti- jewish jobless folk venting… 
Nope, haven’t seen it yet (because it’s not out here ). Anyway… I’m very busy right now, but next friday… I think I may have the afternoon off…
Before I spend my money watching this film I think I’ll read your critiques on it first though 
.
I knew someone was going to bring up Passion sooner or later!
No, I haven’t seen it either - it hasn’t come to Mauritius yet, and if it ever does, I wouldn’t expect it before a month after the US release date
(and that’s an optimistic guess; a realistic one would be 2-3 months after…)
I saw it opening night.
The latin is pronounced mostly ecclesiastical, occasionally classical. They weren’t very consistent. But it was intelligible anyway, unlike the aramaic (although I suppose the aramaic will always be unintelligible to me
I was happy to be able to understand some of it without reading the translations
Their use of the languages was a little odd. I was expecting to hear Aramaic only among the Jews and Latin elsewhere. But they had the Romans speaking Aramaic to the Jews, and Latin only with each other. I thought that was odd.
As for the historicity, I can’t speak to that because I really don’t care. I know that sounds odd since I really do love to study the ancient history, but I am tired of people picking apart this movie (and others) based on tiny details that don’t matter in the slightest–yes there are things that are “wrong” in the movie, but the purpose of the movie was art and worship, not picky historicity. Had Gibson wanted to write a scholarly thesis, he would have done that instead of making a movie. Is the value of Michaelangelo’s “Last Supper” lost because of his anachronistic depiction of them sitting at a table in a 16C setting? Of course not, because its value does not lie in how historically “accurate” it is.
Anyway, that’s my little rant, sorry. You didn’t ask for that but it’s something that really frustrates me whenever this topic comes up. 
Nice post, klewlis. I agree entirely. People will do such “nit picking” even with entirely fictional films like lotr!
I was a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that they spoke mostly with an ecclesiastical accent.
I am going to see the movie sunday night, and will give my critique, for what it will be worth. I’m also not really interested in politics concerning the movie. Will give my neophytical appraisal of the Latin. As for the Aramaic, it’s one of those languages I’ve wanted to study for a long time but haven’t gotten around to it yet. I wish I had before this movie came out!
So is there no Greek in the movie? Would it not be more accurate to take all the Latin out than to take all the Greek out? (I’m sure most people spoke all three, but most people in Rome spoke Greek at that time.)
And no, I’m not looking to pick apart the movie, and like I said, I asked you guys about it because I was looking for something other than picking it apart. I, personally, am not going to see the movie at all, because I’m afraid of influencing myself too much with an R-rated movie on the atonement. I just don’t want to focus my mind on anything that’s going to make me mad when I go to church, nor do I want to set an example of watching R-rated movies. But that’s irrelevant. I just want to hear some commentary from classicists on the movie.
There is no greek in the movie. It may have been “more accurate” to use Greek instead of Latin, but again, that wasn’t necessarily his purpose. Latin was used because Gibson is devoutly Catholic… hence the ecclesiastical pronunciation as well. Of course, considering that they only used Latin for the Romans speaking amongst themselves, that part’s actually pretty realistic, since I’m sure that the Romans probably did speak latin amongst themselves, and Greek to others.
As for whether the movie would do much for your views on the subject, you might be surprised. But it may depend on what your current views are. I know that everyone I have talked to so far has said that their views have been changed, deepened, and enriched. Of course, I have talked to only Christians about it so far, so that makes a difference. I’d be interested to see what non-Christians think of it (aside from the highly emotional and irrational critiques I’ve read so far).
Speaking of critiques from those who haven’t seen the movie, no one had better say the term “anti-semitic” aloud in front of me… 
If and when the movie starts playing in countries like Russia or in the Middle East, then anti-semitism is a big concern – it won’t be pretty.
From the clips I saw on TV and the reactions of movie-goers, it is a pretty sadistic movie! I will leave it for the S&M crowd – enjoy 
Were not the apostles Hellenized Jews? What’s with all the Latin? Last I checked the bible was written in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the people.
Well, the people mostly spoke Aramaic in that particular region. An earlier post said most of the Latin was between Romans, and that could be the case, too. We don’t have any reason to believe either way in that case.
And while the oldest New Testament we have is in Greek, that doesn’t mean much of it, if any, was necessarily written in Greek. John was written in clean enough Greek that we assume it was written in Greek. But don’t let that imply to you that the New Testament happened in Greek.
Sadistic for the sake of sadism or because it is historicaly true?
Greek was not the native tongue for the jews.
Some bible books (eg. Matthew) were almost for sure written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Some others (eg. John’s writings) were probably written in Greek but Greek was a second language for the author.
Luke and Acts were written by a Greek.
According to historians and archaeologists, most Roman centurions in the Middle East – particularly Jerusalem – spoke Greek rather than Latin. The notion that Pontius Pilate and Jesus conversed in Latin is farcical, and is just one of the many historical inaccuracies in the movie.
In reply to Bert ( by the way, thanks Bert for the NT Greek Help ), any form of execution, let alone crucifixion, is brutal, there is no denying that. That said, to make a 2 hour movie that focuses on the protracted torture of Jesus – or any human being – is in my mind sadistic. The Gospels themselves do not go into the gory details of Christ’s death – their message was love not cheap thrills.
On a final note, does this mean no more Lethal Weapons movies from Mel?
Have a great week
I have now seen the movie, and while the Latin was often rather rapidly spoken, I did manage to understand some of it. Reading it and understanding it spoken in such manner are two different things. I managed to learn a new word from the movie. One Roman soldier called another ‘Idiote!’ I think the meaning is pretty clear.
Even so, the pleasure of hearing Latin spoken-even if it wasn’t spoken the way the Romans would have at the time-cannot be denied.
This is a really powerful movie, and the movie itself overcomes the excersise in Latin comprehension. This cannot be overstated. Those who think it too graphic have it wrong in this case. This is a work of art, and a masterpiece. It’s detractors may as well get used to bellyaching, because it will stand the test of time. It’s the best movie I’ve ever seen, and it may be the greatest movie ever made.
As for the detractors, I see nothing anti-semitic about the movie. I think that most of those who hate the movie are not Jews, but rather are atheists who are using the charge of anti-semitism as a cover for their own anti-Christian bigotry. That is not to say that all atheists feel this way, but clearly many do. They just cannot stand to see a truly Christian movie get made, let alone draw crowds to see it. They wish to eradicate all Christian influence in society, and this movie will set them back in their efforts. Peel the charge of anti-semitism away, and there is revealed a venal hatred lying under it.
All this, by the way, comes from someone who is not a church goer.
JfCc
Well, I’m one of the anti-christians at large. But the reason I would detest the way a christian movie is made is a little bit delicate. I don’t mean to persuade anybody here to my opinion, but describe what is my line of thought here: I think the christian religion can be beneficial in many ways. But not in the way that the biblical events are believed to be what actually happened historically. But in the way that it is accepted as rich allegories and metaphors. Moreover, in old times christians used the term “murderer of Jesus” to provoke anti-semitism. That was a striking example that they propagated hate by the name of love. It is partly because they understood the story as a historical event, not a story where you could learn to forgive them who persecute you.
(My company network began to refuse to connect to textkit. It is probably unhappy about my frequent visit to this site. I’ll have to get in here at weekends only. if my baby allows me some leisure )
The problem is, it did happen.
Well if we have any indication from the enlightenment of the Dalai Steven Seagal, he’ll release his next soft-porn vengeance film starring another ex-felon rapist rapper co-star in 3 weeks. (…not to mention the enlightenment of fellow soft-porn star Richard Gere.)
Saw it…it was pretty brutal. I felt that it was a fairly accurate attempt at portaying what the 4 gospels tell us about the of Jesus. It was buckets of though…not for the fainthearted. Of course, the Romans were pretty accomplished at t0rture and executi0n. One thing I can’t figure out though…why Italians aren’t up in arms about this movie. Gibson casts the Roman soldiers in a very negative light, he makes it look like they even enjoy crucifying and executing Jesus. If I was Italian I’d be pretty upset! As far as anti-Semitism…the Temple Guards were some pretty serious bruisers, and the Temple Preists and Sanhedrin were (mostly) arrogant and hypocritical…anti-semitism or accurate portrayal? I’m not sure, I suppose some could see it as anti-Semite, but it didn’t seem necessarily so to me.
For both the Romans and the Jews, the movie depicted some as good and some as bad. I think that that is both true to the gospels and true to the nature of humanity.
That’s the million dollar question, whether anti-semitism and accurate portrayal are necessary exclusive.
I think my biggest beef with the whole film was the lack of Greek…I spend all of this time learning Greek…it would of been cool to hear it spoken.