Login

Nathan Ross · 04-13-2004, 12:01 PM

I think the idea is that Nazareth was a very small village at the time of Jesus' birth, and therefore 'Jesus of Nazareth' would mean about as much as 'Jesus of Upper Dogsbottom' to anyone not from the immediate area. This theory is rather confounded by the fact that the gospel writers had such a problem with the birthplace - traditionally, the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, hence the (apparent) invention or chronological alteration of the Census to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in time to fulfil the prophecies. If Jesus was not from Nazareth, why do the gospels insist on such an inconvenient place of origin? 
 
As for the Nazarenes thing - there were a multitude of small sects in first century Judaism, many of them rather mysterious to us today. The Nazirites were an age-old group of purists - Samson was one - who scrupulously observed the law. The Nazarenes or Nazoreans, meanwhile, are commonly assumed to be a branch of the Essenes, conceivably the warlike group who left the scrolls at Qumran. Quite possibly there's a Jesus connection there. In quest of the first 'Jewish Christians', many writers have fixed their sights on the Ebionites, however, another rather obscure group, maybe connected to the Essenes, who are mentioned at the time. All this does become a bit conspiratorial, however - the whole 'Jesus origins' debate is a playground for cranky theories - my favourite is that the new testament was written by Roman senator Calpurnius Piso... 
 
Passion of the Christ, hmmm... Living on the edge of the Cornish moors, I hardly qualify for urban sophisticate status, but I found little to love in the film. Certainly it was overwhelming and 'powerful' - so many films are these days - filled with CGI crowds, gore and booming music. Certainly too, Jesus died a horrible death. So did thousands of others, scourged and crucified for rebellion. By focussing so absolutely on the physical torment of Jesus, on the sheer gruelling endurance-test of it all, Gibson creates a reductive and rather perverted version of Christianity, all pain and groaning, absolute good and evil, machismo and masochism. Sure enough, the early church had its death obsessions as well (read Cyprian's 'Exhortations to Martyrdom' for an insight into 3rd century 'fundamentalism'), but in the 21st century, Gibson's view seems designed to browbeat viewers in shamed acceptance of a very reactionary dogma - the 'shock and awe' approach to religious teaching perhaps. Maybe it is just to do with faith, though - I'm not a Christian of any description, and the film just summed up everything I find most disagreeable about Christianity at its most righteous and unlovely. Perhaps I'm just a sneering urban sophisticate after all... 
 
(icon of empty sneering, a la Alan Rickman...)

04-13-2004, 12:08 PM

It is a book by italian writer Franco Mimmi. I have it in french, it is also translated in german but I haven't seen it in english. 
It is only a novel, a work of fiction; but with the interesting twist of Jesus being an agent of the Romans sent to try to calm down things in a region where they cannot be calmed down. 
It is pretty well documented and gives a vivid description (I think..) of Judea then. 
The nazarean/nazirean theory is there. It comes, according to the author, from the word "nazara", which means the truth, and not from Nazareth, a city that indeed may have not existed, or existed under another name, during that period, round 753 AUC. 
The Nazireans were a jewish sect. It seems that there was then as many sects, or almost, as they were Jews.. 
Mimmi cites a few: besides the Zealots and the Essenians, there were the Saducceans, two factions of Pharisians (the conservatives of Shammai and the liberals of Hillel) the Baptists (of John), the Ebionists, the Hellenophiles, the Masbotheans, Galileans, Herodians, Samaritans, Hemerobaptists and some we probably don't know about. 
That means a lot of prophets preaching all over the place and most of all preaching the deliverance --or the messiah-- soon, since they considered that the Romans, who ruled them with an iron hand, were "unpÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â®ous" and "impure" persons worshipping "false gods" and that God the One and Only, certainly would not allow that for long.. 
Today we'd call these prophets mollahs.. 
People with beards, self proclaimed sole depositors of "the Truth". Usually violent... As Churchill said, a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject. 
Apparently, Jesus did a little more than preach. It is evident, even if only for the Scriptures, that he had numerous followers. 
The episode of the merchants of the Temple is proof of that. 
Had he been alone he would not have been able to kick the merchants out. It's like a single person making trouble in St Peter of Rome. It lasts one minute and the pertubator is quickly led away. End of the incident.. 
The more so since we know what "the merchants" were: The Jews had an obligation to sacrifice at the Temple. A lamb for the rich and a pigeon for those that couldn't afford the lamb. 
Of course you needed a blessed lamb, or pigeon, for that. 
Only the priests at the Temple sold consecrated lambs and pÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â®geons... 
Of course they are more expensive than the non consecrated variety... 
Moreover, you have to buy them with consecrated money too. That money had to be changed and I let you imagine the rate of exchange. All in all a good profitable business. 
This was THE system. And Jesus and his mob --because it was a mob, it couldn't materially be anything else-- attacked THE system and most probably set up a fine riot inside the Temple grounds, taking down the changers' booths and so on... 
He attacked the high priests' unprescribable way of making a buck. He struck where it hurts the most, then and now: he struck at the wallet. And that, then and now, is a no no.. 
Of course that bothered the high priests more than it did the Romans. 
For Pilate, Jesus was just another one of the numerous jewish troublemakers he had to deal with on an everyday basis. For the high priests he was a threat to their very existence, a threat to THE system.. 
He had to die, whether Pilatus wanted it or not; and I suspect Pilatus was torn between two feelings. On one hand the rare pleasure of seeing the high priests in trouble and on the other the absolute necessity of maintaning law and order, lest Tiberius Caesar, over there in Capri, be informed of yet more troubles in Judea... 
And Divus Tiberius Caesar, as we know, was not generally in a good mood.. 
So he "washed his hands" and the message to the high priests was clear, very concise, very roman. It meant: this guy was right to do what he did because your system is nothing else but a gigantic rip off. However I'll sacrifice him in the name a public peace, because politically, I cannnot do otherwise. But believe me I wish I could. 
As for who's guilty of killing "The son of God", no one is. Those responsible for the man's execution died two thousand years ago. There is a statute of limitations. 
As for accusing the ones or the others it seems very un-christian to me. 
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do", remember? 
Selective forgiveness maybe? 
A last word about faith and knowledge: someone said his brother was an atheist and had a lot of faith. Wrong word: believers have faith, atheists have knowledge. 
And may Minerva, Goddess of Wisdom, protect you all. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 4/13/04 2:13 pm

Vincula · 04-13-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:<hr>He had to die, whether Pilatus wanted it or not.<hr> 
We are probably WAY off thread by now, but it must be said: if anyone was crucified in Judaea it was most surely because Pilate wanted it. 
Is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to bend over backwards to absolve the Romans of any blame?!

Los456 · 04-13-2004, 02:02 PM

"By focussing so absolutely on the physical torment of Jesus, on the sheer gruelling endurance-test of it all, Gibson creates a reductive and rather perverted version of Christianity, all pain and groaning, absolute good and evil, machismo and masochism." 
 
Maybe Gibson is not trying to create some "reductive , perverted version of Christianity" but perhaps a little microhistory covering the last hours of his life. Just an overlooked piece that can fit into all the other parts of the story. 
 
Sort of like writing a book about Lorica Segmentatas is not meant to be a history of the Roman Army but just a niche document of one small "segment" of the picture. (Pun intended.) 
 
Or I wouldn't read "Picket's Charge: A Microhistory of the Final Attack of Gettysburg July 3, 1863 by George Rippey Stewart to get a complete picture of the battle, but the book is a nice niche piece on those fateful four of five hours. 
 
Los

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 04-13-2004, 02:02 PM

Thanks Antoninus it's needed, even if I don't know how much patience our Minerva will have... 
 
Vale, 
Titus

Gashford · 04-14-2004, 10:26 AM

One of the best write ups on the film I have come across can be found here: [url=http://www.shipoffools.com/Features/frameit.htm?0304/passion_ms.html" target="top]Ship of Fools[/url] where they examine whether or not the film was 'good' as a movie. 
 
All the best. Graham Ashford
<hr />
[url=http://www.ludus.org.uk" target="_new]Ludus Gladiatorius[/url] 
[url=http://pub156.ezboard.com/bromancombatsports" target="_new]Roman Combat Sports Forum[/url] 
[url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk" target="_new]Roman Army Talk Forum[/url] 
[url=http://pub27.ezboard.com/bromancivtalk" target="_new]Roman Civilian Talk Forum[/url]

Thiudareiks Flavius · 04-14-2004, 11:02 PM

Vincula asked: 
 
Quote:<hr>Is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to bend over backwards to absolve the Romans of any blame?!<hr> 
 
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". 
 
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 could 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). 
 
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. 
 
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 Holy Blood Holy Grail 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. 
 
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. 
 
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 was 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. 
 
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. 
 
I finally saw The Passion 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". 
Cheers, Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions. 
 
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.

04-15-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:<hr>I finally saw The Passion 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".<hr> 
 
Thank you, Tim. 
 
I've been trying to gird up my loins to go and see this film because I felt I ought to, in order to generate an independent opinion - which in normal circumstances, I would prefer. However, having read so much about it - including information from people such as yourself and certain others for whose observations I have a healthy respect, I've decided not to go. A number of reasons have contributed towards my decision, and for me, it's the right one. 
 
 <img src="http://vicinity.homestead.com/files/kingfishersquare.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 ~You have so much to enjoy and to be, and to do~ 
(including visiting [url=http://pub107.ezboard.com/bmirabilevisu" target="top]MIRABILE VISU [/url]) 
 Photo by Balazs Karman and Laszlo Novak 
[url=http://pub107.ezboard.com/bmirabilevisu" target="top]<img src="http://redrocket.homestead.com/files/mv/mvban3c.gif" style="border:0;"/>[/url]

JRSCline · 04-15-2004, 10:13 AM

Personally, I'd wait for the DVD. Fast forward thru the splatterfest. 
 
However, I do admire Mel for putting his own money where his mouth is. If he's reaping the big bucks now, he certainly earned it, fair and square. Film marketers should be studying how the Passion was marketed and publicized; absolutely brilliant campaign for its unorthodoxy, however "orthodox" the film message might be. 
 
Cheers, 
Jenny

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 04-15-2004, 11:34 AM

Yes Jenny, as I told above it's a real marketing masterpiece, altough I've found a small (big) mistake... look at the "Passion" end credits image below, it's absolutely true not a fake... 
 
<img src="http://users.libero.it/sabsab/titus/PassionEndCredits.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
Hey, let me 
 
Vale, 
Titus

04-15-2004, 03:42 PM

Oh that's wonderful! <img src="http://vicinity.homestead.com/files/kingfishersquare.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 ~You have so much to enjoy and to be, and to do~ 
(including visiting [url=http://pub107.ezboard.com/bmirabilevisu" target="top]MIRABILE VISU [/url]) 
 Photo by Balazs Karman and Laszlo Novak 
[url=http://pub107.ezboard.com/bmirabilevisu" target="top]<img src="http://redrocket.homestead.com/files/mv/mvban3c.gif" style="border:0;"/>[/url]

04-15-2004, 08:39 PM

Oh! Titus this is totally magnificent!!! 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 4/15/04 10:41 pm

04-15-2004, 09:27 PM

I first came to this site to respond to comments on books I had written. Up to that point, my experience of internet conversation was that it was usually puerile, low level and casually abusive. That was not the case here and instead, I have been impressed by the knowledge, wit and yes, intelligence of contributors. 
 
I do not want to lower those standards with my own sarcasm after the civilised way I have been treated, though this particular string seems to stray far from logical argument into more emotional disagreement. 
 
"Oh! Titus this is totally magnificent!!!" ?? 
 
Is this not the sort of gleeful sneering I mentioned? Put a 'darling' in the middle and you have it exactly. It is a witty little thing to find that this film has the same legal disclaimer of every other film, I grant you. 
 
My point is that I can like this film without despising those who hate it. Though I disagree with Titus and Tim O'Neill, I can respect their opinions because it appears to be genuinely felt and well expressed. I think they are wrong, but I don't think they are idiots. 
 
Best wishes to all, 
 
Conn Iggulden

04-16-2004, 07:54 AM

Quote:<hr>Is this not the sort of gleeful sneering I mentioned? Put a 'darling' in the middle and you have it exactly. It is a witty little thing to find that this film has the same legal disclaimer of every other film, I grant you. 
 
My point is that I can like this film without despising those who hate it. Though I disagree with Titus and Tim O'Neill, I can respect their opinions because it appears to be genuinely felt and well expressed. I think they are wrong, but I don't think they are idiots.<hr> 
 
With all due respect, I disagree. I do not consider that one is "sneering" simply for recognising the unintentional humour in such a paradoxical situation. After so much grim and unrelentingly brutal action in a film, it would be almost a blessing to have something to laugh about. 
 
Why indeed should the very fact of such a simple, light hearted post, seem to suggest to you that the writer might not like the film? Or indeed, despise others, be an idiot or consider others to be so? Erudition and intellect can walk comfortably hand in hand with wit and lightheartedness - as well as emotion. One naturally can base a scholarly treatise on facts - I am no scholar; I cannot pretend to be - but I learn a great deal from members such as Tim, for whose opinion, clear, precise fact based writing and views I have an enormous amount of respect - but surely the emotions of the writer should be engaged as well in order to convey a point they feel passionately about - otherwise it would be deadly dull. 
 
I 
Incidentally, I'm curious - what SHOULD or DO they put at the end of a film which is based on "fact" other than that specific disclaimer? Perhaps someone can tell me. 
 <img src="http://vicinity.homestead.com/files/kingfishersquare.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 ~You have so much to enjoy and to be, and to do~ 
(including visiting [url=http://pub107.ezboard.com/bmirabilevisu" target="top]MIRABILE VISU [/url]) 
 Photo by Balazs Karman and Laszlo Novak 
[url=http://pub107.ezboard.com/bmirabilevisu" target="top]<img src="http://redrocket.homestead.com/files/mv/mvban3c.gif" style="border:0;"/>[/url]

**Robert Vermaat** · 04-16-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:<hr>Incidentally, I'm curious - what SHOULD or DO they put at the end of a film which is based on "fact" other than that specific disclaimer? Perhaps someone can tell me. <hr> 
Well,for one, may not the big image of a double-banner image, which I consider to be a bit like spam, in fact. But that's my personal opinion. 
 
The film is 'based on' fact, let's be clear about that. Mel Gibson is a self-confessed ultra-orthodox Catholic partisan, who consiously refuses to accept the current ideas of the catholic church. In fact, he refused to accept the findings of 'Vatican II', where the Catholic church let go of the Jewish guilt in Jesus' death. 
 
Newsweek had a very even-handed review about the movie: [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/" target="top]www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/[/url] I found it very good. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	"Spear of Christ" on History Channel (US)	A_Volpe	8	2,284	01-02-2007, 01:56 PM Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS