New Mel Gibson Christ movie

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Vincula asked:<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to bend over backwards to absolve the Romans of any blame?!<hr><br>
<br>
No, it's not just you. It's pretty clear that Mark's gospel, which was used as the primary source for Matthew and Luke, was written in the wake of the First Jewish War and was at pains to distance Jesus from those pesky Jewish rebels. So Pilate, who we know from history as a harsh and fairly brutal ruler, is depicted as a meek little lamb and the Saducees, who we know from history were virtually collaborators with the Romans, are depicted as the wicked bloodthirsty bullies. In John's gospel this becomes even simpler - there it is "the Jews".<br>
<br>
This is why so much in the gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest and trial don't make sense. Jesus is accused of "blasphemy" by the Saducees, but it isn't blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. It's claimed that the Jews can't execute him themselves and so have to hand him over to the Romans, but we know from several sources, including an inscription from the Temple, from Josephus and from the Book of Acts, that the Sanhedrin <em>could</em> execute people. The gospels claim that Pilate has the (very odd) custom of releasing a prisoner into the volatile atmosphere of the Passover festival (was he insane?!), but this is not supported by any other sources (or by simple logic) and the prisoner released in Jesus' place has the suspiciously symbolic name of "son of the father" (Barabbas).<br>
<br>
Clearly, you simply can't take these accounts of the trial and death of Jesus at face value - there is too much in them which are obviously driven by motives other than telling a straight documentary journalistic account, though this is how many people read them.<br>
<br>
A couple of other points - archaeology proves that Nazareth did exist in Jesus time, as an extremely tiny hamlet outside Sepphoris. The "Nazarite/Nazorean" thesis is one of a vast number of fringe theories which are, at best, "maybes" and, more usually, small planks in a vast raft of crackpot speculation. And to call <em>Holy Blood Holy Grail</em> a "discredited source" is the understatement of the century. If there is ever a pastiche of barking mad nonsense which deserves to be ignored and/or pulped or piled high and burnt by chanting mobs, it's this stupid, stupid, stupid book.<br>
<br>
On the dating issue - we have no idea when Jesus was born. Matthew's gospel says it was before Herod died, which makes it pre-4 BC. Luke's gospel says it was during Quirinius' census, which was circa 6-7 AD. But nothing in Luke's story can be found in Matthew's and vice versa and the two stories actually contradict each other on many points apart from the mutually exclusive dates.<br>
<br>
The safest bet is to say that neither story, or their datings, can be relied on. For some reason, it's become standard to say Jesus <strong>was</strong> born in 4 BC, though why this date (Matthew's, sort of) has been chosen over Luke's when neither is reliable is a mystery to me.<br>
<br>
Personally, I'd say Dionysius Exegius got it as close to right as makes no difference and he can be said to have been born around the Year 0.<br>
<br>
I finally saw <em>The Passion</em> the other day. I found it a blunt and rather repellent and ugly piece of dumbheaded fundamentalist propaganda which wouldn't impress anyone who didn't believe already, though which was numbing in its relentless sadism. I believe it's called "preaching to the choir".<br>
Cheers, <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<br>
<br>
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>
<br>
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions.<br>
<br>
Come to my [url=http://www.ancientworlds.net/member/Gunthigg/Thiudareiks" target="top]Stathigg[/url] in [url=http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/City/23413" target="top]Germania[/url] at the [url=http://www.ancientworlds.net/" target="top]Ancient Worlds[/url] community.</p><i></i>