Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Mel Gibson Christ movie
#31
Aitor,<br>
<br>
Thanks for posting this - I was on the verge of asking if anyone could identify the unit which might have carried out the crucifixion.<br>
<br>
With regards to the 'Italian' Cohort and the Cohors Augusta, any chance they could have been legionary cohorts on detatched duty? Or, given that (as I understand it) some auxiliary units were named after their founders, could the Italian cohort actually have been the Cohort of Italicus? Either way, it would seem rather unlikely there were Italian auxiliaries. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#32
This analysis of the historical Pilate explains the seeming discrepancy between the ruthless, greedy "brute" of historical record and somewhat vascillating Pilate of the movie and the Gospels... www.anglicanmedia.com.au/.../504/1/74/ <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tomalbright@romanarmytalk>tom albright</A> at: 2/26/04 7:31 pm<br></i>
Reply
#33
I just saw the movie last night. One of the best damn movies I've ever seen, easily. The Romans were portrayed in wonderful fashion, particularly Pontius Pilate, Abanander, and Longinus. The rank-and-file soldiers were brutal animals, but this portrayal is softened by the sympathetic Pilate, et al. As for the Roman costume, I thought it looked just fine for how the movie was supposed to work, not necessarily accurate but it did not bother me one bit (nor should it you -- the thought that inaccurate costumes can ruin movies for people makes me roll my eyes, I must admit).<br>
<br>
The costumes of the Jewish soldiers were spectacular, though, and look to have been based on the Herodian soldiers presented in the Osprey book 'Rome's Enemies: The Desert Frontier.'<br>
<br>
Every Christian should see this movie. Period. Everyone else should too, because quite simply it is a work of art. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#34
Regarding tau crosses versus quatraform crosses, I have never been able to see how the tau cross could have been a more practical cross than the quatraform cross. To my mind there are only four methods of attaching the crossbar to the upright, namely: a) nailing, b) lashing, c) pegging with dowels and d) using a mortice and tenon.<br>
a) For a cross to have the necessary strength the timbers would have to have been reasonably stout (although not the railway sleepers we sometimes see depicted) and therefore if it were to be nailed together the nails would have to be quite log and several would be needed. Although the Romans were quite capable of making nails of this size, it seems to me that the nails would be quite expensive items to use when other alternatives were available. Nails of sufficient strength might also split the wood.<br>
b) Rope could have been used to lash the crossbar to the standing upright. Although it is possible to lash a bar onto the end of another bar, it is much more stable to lash crossed bars. During my time in scouts and as a scout instructor and then leader I witnessed heavy spars being securely lashed to uprights many times and always found that as long as the spar was supported by people at both ends, an experienced scout could lash it quickly and securely in place in about a minute. If the weight of the man attached to the crossbar was supported from underneath while the cross was being lashed together the lashing could be done very quickly and would have been strong enough to remain secure for a long time. If the two elements of the cross were notched slightly the strength of the join would be even greater. When the body was removed from the cross and the cross bar taken off, the rope could be wound up for re-use on future crosses.<br>
c) I do not think that pegging would be a practical option as the holes would have to be perfectly aligned on both cross members for the pegs to fit and there would have to be several for the joint to have enough strength. Add to that the probability that the crossbar might be re-used on a different cross next time and the possibility that the uprights and crossbars might not have been made in the same place and the pegging option tooks very shaky.<br>
d) A mortice and tenon joint would work well for a tau cross but would be impractical for a quatraform cross. The work of cutting mortices and tenons, although easy for an experienced woodworker, would surely take longer than lashing would take, and even if the crossbars were continually being re-used, I am sure the tenons on the uprights would get worn or broken over time, something which would not be relevant for a lashing.<br>
<br>
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the most likely from of cross would be a lashed together quatraform (or 'crusiform'), although I feel that a morticed tau would also be possible but less practical.<br>
<br>
<br>
I have yet to see the film (it doesn't open here until March) but as long as I can convince my slightly squeamish wife to go I will certainly be seeing it.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 2/26/04 10:56 pm<br></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#35
The most spoken language in Jerusalem in 30 ce would have been koine, its the only one all people could communicate in.<br>
<br>
I did not see the movie, but reading the above links about cruicifixion, the movie could never show it as horrible as it really was.<br>
<br>
Excellent discussion BTW.<br>
Encyclopedia Britannica says Pilate was an appointee of Sejanus and must have been feeling uneasy after Sejanus' fall in 31 ce. This may explain his fearful uncertainty. Pilate was recalled in 36 to face charges of killing roman citizens without trial. A tradition dating from the 4th century says he was forced to commit suicide under Caligula, which makes sense as Caligula loved killing people.<br>
<br>
I suppose every classicst/military historian must make up their own mind as to what actually happened. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aschyltus>aschyltus</A> at: 3/1/04 10:53 am<br></i>
Reply
#36
Believe me when I say the movie shows how horrible crucifixion was.<br>
<br>
If nothing else, you will leave the theater being assured of this fact. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#37
This movie caused me to totally re-evaluate my spirituality. It is one of the finest movies I have ever seen. For those critics who say it's too violent, I say shame on them for giving "Terminator" type movies a free pass to violence and then condemning a somewhat accurate historical depiction for showing what it really looks like to be tortured and crucified.<br>
<br>
If you haven't seen it you simply must, no matter what your faith or level of belief. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#38
Please, no CE, Common Era. Apart from the fact that calling the last two thousand years 'Common/Current Era' sounds Orwellian, it still takes its changeover date from Christ's birth and therefore is about the daftest modern idea I've heard since someone used the word 'modernism' as if it meant something.<br>
<br>
Like it or not, our dating system is based on the birth of Jesus. The Soviet Union tried to introduce a new system to get around that, but even they eventually gave up.<br>
<br>
I could respect a Muslim who wanted to date things from Mohammed, but non-muslims trying to ignore a cultural influence of that sort of force is just ridiculous.<br>
<br>
Here endeth the rant. I wouldn't have bothered, but this string is about a Christ film, after all.<br>
<br>
Conn <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#39
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Like it or not, our dating system is based on the birth of Jesus.<hr><br>
Or, at least, within a 4-6 year radius of it!<br>
<br>
Personally, I advocate a return to A.U.C.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#40
To CE or not to CE, that is the question...<br>
<br>
Seems like a personal preference thing to me. If you want to AD/BC, fine. If CE/BCE, fine too. Everyone understands.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#41
Avete Omnes!<br>
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Back in town now after much traveling and spreading the joys of the ancient world to students, teachers and parents all over the American mid-west. I had to comment on this one.<br>
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp All dating systems are arbitrary human inventions and are convenient to those who use them; they are always being amended, refined, and updated for practical reasons. Conn's comment and Frank's humorous reply I thought deserved some background. Since archæological and historical scholarship of any Middle-Eastern region involves the current occupants of the territory (Christian, Islamic, and Hebrew: including all varients therein), the neutral BCE/CE designation helps avoid unnecessary and counterproductive insults, on purpose or not, in both the practical digging and subsequent publication of results.<br>
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The notion that "Anno Domini" is based on the birth of Jesus ran into problems only decades after it was conceived by Sixth Century monk Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Short), and frankly was days off by his own design. Dennis calculated that Jesus was born on December 25, 753 A.U.C. He restarted time on January 1st, 754 " ab urbe condita," the feast of the circumcision on the eighth day of Jesus' life and Roman New Years. When it was later calculated that Herod the Great died in 750 A.U.C. and in order for the Gospels to be true and Herod to order the Slaughter of all those Innocents, Jesus had to have been born in 4 B.C. or earlier. Ever since, Christian timelines have had to say, Christ was born "circa" 4 B.C. Further complicating such things as timelines is the problem that the Arabic concept of "zero" as a necessary midpoint on a numberline was unavailable to Dennis in the Sixth Century European concepts of numbers.<br>
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The inherent irony that Jesus was born some four years "Before Christ" and died in 28 A.D. at age 33 only magnifies the arbitrariness of human dating systems.<br>
<br>
Wade Heaton<br>
Lucius Cornelius Libo<br>
[email protected] <br>
www.togaman.com <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#42
Even if he had had the use of 'zero' I doubt that Dionysius would have used it in his dating system. The Anno Domini dating system is not one of simple numbering (ie: number 1, number 2, number 3 etc) but instead uses regnal years as its method of dating as was traditional when referring to points in the reigns of emperors and magistrates.<br>
<br>
Anno domini 1 is the first year of the Lord (note the Latin possessive). No zero is required. Attempts to say that AD1 would be achieved only at the conclusion of 'Year 0' misunderstand the fact that the dating system sees years as complete units, unlike our similar but different method of counting birthdays. Therefore last year became 2003 on 1/1/03 rather than 31/12/03 and 2004 is already underway.<br>
<br>
As a way of noting a person's years in a position, regnal numbering makes more sense than simple numbering starting with zero. A reign must necessarily start in its first year and this, naturally, is followed by the second year and so on. In another example, my first year at university was 1989, even though the exact completion of that accademic cycle came in 1990. Because 1989 was my first year, 1990 was necessarily my second. I did not have a nothing year, just as I do not believe that there was an unrecorded year between Augustus' twenty seventh year of settlement with the Roman people and his twenty eighth year (or the 23rd and 24th for that matter).<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#43
Very cool, Crispus. The comment about the Zero really concerns the calculation of events BC/BCE and converting those to a number line system. How many integers are there between 1 and -1? "How many years ago was the battle of Actium?" The usual mathmatical calculation will be wrong; Dionysius' first century had only 99 years. For a more lively and literate discussion of the consequences of Dennis's historically unavailable "zero," check out Stephen Jay Gould's "Questioning the Millennium" from which I have cribbed much.<br>
<br>
WH <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#44
On the radio today, in a programme called 'Beyond Belief', I heard a woman confidently assert that Jesus was in fact, born 'at sunset, on the 5th of May, 5 BC'. Now I thought that kind of faux-accuracy was funny, but it was a discussion about astrology, so she amused me further by going on to say his birth chart foretold great things.<br>
<br>
Off the subject, I suppose, though I am aware that the BC/AD dating system has its faults. I think that sort of criticism misses the point though.<br>
<br>
Whether it starts on the correct date, or is wrong by up to six or even seven years, the AD/BC dating still recognises the birth of Christianity - the single most powerful cultural force in the Western world for the last two thousand years. There are few traditions with that kind of weight and such a thing should not be discarded lightly. Or at all, if I had my way.<br>
<br>
My worry is that the B/CE creation is in fact part of the trend to deny or apologise for western Christian culture - the sort of thing that has led to Easter posters being banned in libraries by some councils in England. I know Jewish people who find this kind of embarrassment silly and, yes, patronising. Christians do not need to find a dating system that does not offend other religions. Believe me when I say that for the most part, this kind of thing baffles those from different faith traditions. I mentioned the Soviet union's attempt to change the calendar because this B/CE business really did remind me of it. It hurts no one and if it aint broke, don't fix it.<br>
<br>
I do have another, semantic objection, which is that the CE name is as soulless and arrogant as modernism. I thought the term 'Post-modernism' was laughably lacking in historical perspective, but what on earth could create a PCE culture? Or will this be the Common/Current era for another two thousand years?<br>
<br>
Conn<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#45
Conn,<br>
<br>
I agree completely!<br>
As a historian, I find the CE dating hoorible, only ranking below the BP-dating, which is ridiculous because no-one will be able to tell infuture waht the BP of the source might have been.<br>
<br>
The CE-dating is, after all, a childish way to get around the Christian Era dating, which initials they kept. The former East german communists did the same thing once, retaining the AD dating but naming it 'Nach unserer Zeit (NuZ)', 'after our time'. Which was ludicrous when taken literally.<br>
<br>
So why is BC/BCE considered neutral? To retain the starting year of the Christian Era and to pretend you use a different system because you are not a believer in Christ is silly. Why did the so-called 'Common Era' (why 'common'?) start the same year of the Christian Era? Was that the year of mr. or mrs. Common's birth? I see this as similar to some people writing 'gawd' when they are not allowed to use 'god'. Hypocritic. I you don't want to use the Christian system because you have religious objections (which is fine), start a new system or or a different one, like AUC, indded!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
historian<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Spear of Christ" on History Channel (US) A_Volpe 8 2,241 01-02-2007, 01:56 PM
Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS

Forum Jump: