Replies

no time to read the hundreds of posts now -- bump to read later.

Watching the film is just catching a glimpse of what it must have been like. You know that, for all the protests about Gibson's "graphic" portrayal, he has provided only a hint at what the true horror of the actual scourging and crucifixion must have been like. And so much of Christ's suffering is off-screen, due to the collapse of time, cut-aways, flashbacks, and camera shots of the soldiers' or crowd's reactions.

As for the charge of anti-Semitism, I think the natural reaction to the film is for the viewer to desire to amend his life and avoid committing the sins which cause Our Lord to suffer so -- not to compound them by adding on new ones. The Jews that brought Him before Pilate and Herod are the ones who needed to convince them that He had broken Roman law and deserved death. Of course they will look bad. (Yet He forgives them.)

And I have not heard any of the media reviewers point out that when several of the high priests begin to complain to Caiaphas that "the rest of the council are not here" and that proper legal procedure is being violated, Caiaphas has these priests (in their robes and mitres) forcibly ejected from the hall. This scene is extra-biblical, but does drive home that in Mel Gibson's original script, Christ's condemners are portaryed as a minority faction of the high priests led by Caiaphas who railroad Christ via a kangaroo court.

Try to catch the History Channel's rerun of its presentation entitled, " Who Killed Jesus." Contains some interesting material.

The HC show emphasized that Jesus infuriated Caiphas by throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. This was Caiphas' reasoning for bringing Jesus before the chief priests of the temple....aside from the subtect that that Jesus was going around preaching things that Caiphas considered a challenge to his own power.

The chief priests had no civil power to get rid of Jesus. They needed Pilate--and Roman law that prevailed---to do that for them.

But Pilate, as a Roman leader, had no say over Jewish (religious) transgressions and had, in fact, said he thought Jesus was innocent. Pilate was also sensitive to his wife begging him to save Jesus.

Caiphas cleverly changed the charge made against Jesus and appealed to Pilate as a Roman politician. Caiphas made Jesus' crime look to be, not a religious issue, but sedition against Rome: Caiphas told Pilate that Jesus said he was king of the Jews---an affront against Rome--which helped Caiphas turn Pilate against Jesus,

Meanwhile the crowds were demanding Christ's head. Pilate tried to assuage the crowds by giving them a choice between Christ or Barrabas. They chose Christ which led Pilate to command the Crucifixion.

Good post Dajjal,

I heard a reviewer this morning complaining about the 'gratuitous violence'. He mentioned the scene where Jesus was thrown over the wall and said that wasn't in the Bible. I remember noting that wasn't in the Scripture, but that Gibson was extrapolating based on the written record, plus the commentaries on the nature of the Roman cruelty. What Jesus allowed to happen to Himself was far worse than what this film could portray.

You're correct: The objections from the priest in the film about the lack of legal process stood out. You said it well, "This scene is extra-biblical, but does drive home that in Mel Gibson's original script, Christ's condemners are portaryed as a minority faction of the high priests led by Caiaphas who railroad Christ via a kangaroo court."