I keep seeing this opinion posted he

"nor do I relish the idea of seeing such a violent and
> bloody film, esp. when I know the outcome of the story already."

The Crucifixion _was_ violent and bloody. That's the point!

>I keep seeing this opinion posted he
>
>"nor do I relish the idea of seeing such a violent and
>> bloody film, esp. when I know the outcome of the story already."
>
>The Crucifixion _was_ violent and bloody. That's the point!
>

ohhhh ok .. so now I get the point. The crucifixion was done so Mel Gibson
could make a movie in the year 2004!
NOWWWWWW I get it ... finally.
~Kat


What did my hands do before they held you?
Sylvia Plath (1932 - 1963)

>The Crucifixion _was_ violent and bloody. That's the point!
>

So, life itself is violent and bloody. Giving birth is violent and bloody.
Hamburger is violent and bloody. That doesn't mean violence and blood, in
themselves, have some message that should interest us.

The authors of the gospels didn't think so: they prefered a sedate,
ritualistic, even pedantic style with a tone of ironic understatement. The
gran gignol, Freddy Kruger treatment, however, seems to appeal to today's
tastes and spiritual requirements.

Neil

>From: (WardNA)
>Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking

[ . . . ]

>The authors of the gospels didn't think so: they prefered a sedate,
>ritualistic, even pedantic style with a tone of ironic understatement.

[ . . . ]

A reader of certain translations of the Bible can be lulled by overfamiliarity.
For "buffeted," read "tortured"; for "smote," read "punched." One can be
jarred by reading the Bible in another language.
This is one way that people with less learning than ours, less conditioning,
can have an advantage: they don't have as many overtones, some of which aren't
part of the original.

The original prose was written in a trade language -- Koine, the "common
tongue" -- and with certain devices common in Hebrew and Aramaic (e.g.,
paralellism and repetition).

So I'd question your reading of the style as "ritualistic, even pedantic".

Ob. Food: Oatmeal, oatmeal, oatmeal.
;-)
E. P.

>(Nancree) drools:
>
>I keep seeing this opinion posted he
>
>"nor do I relish the idea of seeing such a violent and
>> bloody film, esp. when I know the outcome of the story already."
>
>The Crucifixion _was_ violent and bloody. That's the point!

Then you're in agreement that yet another fercocktah rendition portraying
malevolent gore, without any redeeming social value whatsoever,by some
nefarious and greedy douche bag, ain't worth producing again, and again, and
again ad infinitum... only a pointy headed imbecile would advocate seeing such
dreck... are you an idiot's delight, or do you also enjoy films depicting
little girls being raped... of what other forms of shocking violence are you
fond, you porno slut... make no mistake about it, the film is pornography pure
and simple, anyone needs a definition of pornography see the film. Btw,
pornography has nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

Julian9EHP wrote:

>>From: (WardNA)
>>Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>
>>The authors of the gospels didn't think so: they prefered a sedate,
>>ritualistic, even pedantic style with a tone of ironic understatement.
>
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> A reader of certain translations of the Bible can be lulled by overfamiliarity.
> For "buffeted," read "tortured"; for "smote," read "punched." One can be
> jarred by reading the Bible in another language.
> This is one way that people with less learning than ours, less conditioning,
> can have an advantage: they don't have as many overtones, some of which aren't
> part of the original.
>
> The original prose was written in a trade language -- Koine, the "common
> tongue" -- and with certain devices common in Hebrew and Aramaic (e.g.,
> paralellism and repetition).
>
> So I'd question your reading of the style as "ritualistic, even pedantic".
>
> Ob. Food: Oatmeal, oatmeal, oatmeal.
> ;-)
> E. P.


Mark's gospel is anything but sedate. His favorite word seems to be
"immediately".

-bob

Nancree > wrote:
> I keep seeing this opinion posted he

> "nor do I relish the idea of seeing such a violent and
>> bloody film, esp. when I know the outcome of the story already."

> The Crucifixion _was_ violent and bloody. That's the point!

I understand that. Even so, I have no wish to see it.

>So I'd question your reading of the style as "ritualistic, even pedantic".

e.g., at every step of his progress to the cross, the gospel does not fail to
quote some passage from the prophets that it corresponds to. What's that, if
not "ritualistic, even pedantic"?

I don't read Greek, but I've consulted various English translations, and the
basic tone does not vary.

Neil

"Nancree" > wrote in message
...
> I keep seeing this opinion posted he
>
> "nor do I relish the idea of seeing such a violent and
> > bloody film, esp. when I know the outcome of the story already."
>
> The Crucifixion _was_ violent and bloody. That's the point!
>
>

The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question about it.
In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and made
the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed in
the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less graphic
violence and blood, and a little more accuracy wouldn't have hurt. For
example, the entire conversation with Pilates was basically glossed over,
the majority of it skipped, so they could rush back to the blood letting.

kimberly

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:38:56 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:

>example, the entire conversation with Pilates was basically glossed over,
>the majority of it skipped, so they could rush back to the blood letting.
>

Well, I don't think people worried as much about their abs back then
as we do now.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:38:56 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
> >example, the entire conversation with Pilates was basically glossed over,
> >the majority of it skipped, so they could rush back to the blood letting.
> >
>
> Well, I don't think people worried as much about their abs back then
> as we do now.

That should have carried a keyboard warning! Thanks for the giggle!

Jo


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/04

In article >,
says...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:38:56 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
> >example, the entire conversation with Pilates was basically glossed over,
> >the majority of it skipped, so they could rush back to the blood letting.
> >
>
> Well, I don't think people worried as much about their abs back then
> as we do now.

LOL!! This was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
--
Donna
A pessimist believes all women are bad. An optimist hopes they are.

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:38:56 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
> >example, the entire conversation with Pilates was basically glossed over,
> >the majority of it skipped, so they could rush back to the blood letting.
> >
>
> Well, I don't think people worried as much about their abs back then
> as we do now.
>
> Sue(tm)

ROFL! Nice

kimberly

"Nexis" > wrote in message
>
> The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question about
it.
> In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and
made
> the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed in
> the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less graphic
> violence and blood,


So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that was
typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be there.
People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does our
society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of characters
in a video game?

Too often we are changing the names of things just so they don't sound so
harsh. Do you know who can parking the Handicapped Parking places? Crippled
people. There, I said crippled because that is what most of them are. I'm
not full figured, I'm fat. I know it and so do people that look at me. I'm
also not hirsute challenged, I'm going bald. No fancy names needed.

Where I work, we don't have associates or human resources, we have workers.
They get paid as much as associates in other companies. They don't want
fancy names, they want a paycheck.
Ed

"Nexis" > wrote in message
>
> The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question about
it.
> In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and
made
> the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed in
> the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less graphic
> violence and blood,


So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that was
typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be there.
People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does our
society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of characters
in a video game?

Too often we are changing the names of things just so they don't sound so
harsh. Do you know who can parking the Handicapped Parking places? Crippled
people. There, I said crippled because that is what most of them are. I'm
not full figured, I'm fat. I know it and so do people that look at me. I'm
also not hirsute challenged, I'm going bald. No fancy names needed.

Where I work, we don't have associates or human resources, we have workers.
They get paid as much as associates in other companies. They don't want
fancy names, they want a paycheck.
Ed

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> >
> > The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question about
> it.
> > In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and
> made
> > the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed
in
> > the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less
graphic
> > violence and blood,
>
>
> So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
was
> typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
there.
> People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does our
> society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
characters
> in a video game?

How do you know it was accurate? Were you there? I do not advocate
"softening" the facts....neither do I advocate exaggerating them for the
shock value. And video games have nothing to do with it.

>
> Too often we are changing the names of things just so they don't sound so
> harsh. Do you know who can parking the Handicapped Parking places?
Crippled
> people. There, I said crippled because that is what most of them are. I'm
> not full figured, I'm fat. I know it and so do people that look at me.
I'm
> also not hirsute challenged, I'm going bald. No fancy names needed.

This is all beside the point, as eloquently spoken as it may be. If it is
historical accuracy you seek, that movie was not it. He had much more than a
2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
thing.

>
> Where I work, we don't have associates or human resources, we have
workers.
> They get paid as much as associates in other companies. They don't want
> fancy names, they want a paycheck.
> Ed

I'm happy for them....but what do they have to do with this movie?

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> >
> > The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question about
> it.
> > In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and
> made
> > the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed
in
> > the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less
graphic
> > violence and blood,
>
>
> So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
was
> typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
there.
> People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does our
> society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
characters
> in a video game?

How do you know it was accurate? Were you there? I do not advocate
"softening" the facts....neither do I advocate exaggerating them for the
shock value. And video games have nothing to do with it.

>
> Too often we are changing the names of things just so they don't sound so
> harsh. Do you know who can parking the Handicapped Parking places?
Crippled
> people. There, I said crippled because that is what most of them are. I'm
> not full figured, I'm fat. I know it and so do people that look at me.
I'm
> also not hirsute challenged, I'm going bald. No fancy names needed.

This is all beside the point, as eloquently spoken as it may be. If it is
historical accuracy you seek, that movie was not it. He had much more than a
2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
thing.

>
> Where I work, we don't have associates or human resources, we have
workers.
> They get paid as much as associates in other companies. They don't want
> fancy names, they want a paycheck.
> Ed

I'm happy for them....but what do they have to do with this movie?

"Nexis" > wrote in message

> How do you know it was accurate? Were you there? I do not advocate
> "softening" the facts....neither do I advocate exaggerating them for the
> shock value. And video games have nothing to do with it.

But you don't know they were exagerated so complaining it is too much is
moot. The relationship to video games is that people (not just you) are
complaining how violent it was in the movie and some of these same people
accept violence in a video game or Terminator movies as being OK.


> He had much more than a
> 2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
> thing.

Agreed.


>
> I'm happy for them....but what do they have to do with this movie?

Just part of a rant. It has the same relationship to the movies and the
movie does with the topic of this newsgroup. . . . cooking.

OB food: So who did cater the last supper?
Ed

"Nexis" > wrote in message

> How do you know it was accurate? Were you there? I do not advocate
> "softening" the facts....neither do I advocate exaggerating them for the
> shock value. And video games have nothing to do with it.

But you don't know they were exagerated so complaining it is too much is
moot. The relationship to video games is that people (not just you) are
complaining how violent it was in the movie and some of these same people
accept violence in a video game or Terminator movies as being OK.


> He had much more than a
> 2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
> thing.

Agreed.


>
> I'm happy for them....but what do they have to do with this movie?

Just part of a rant. It has the same relationship to the movies and the
movie does with the topic of this newsgroup. . . . cooking.

OB food: So who did cater the last supper?
Ed

"Nexis" > wrote in message
news:TbO4c.12711$Nj.1748@fed1read01...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "Nexis" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question
about
> > it.
> > > In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and
> > made
> > > the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed
> in
> > > the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less
> graphic
> > > violence and blood,
> >
> >
> > So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
> was
> > typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
> there.
> > People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does
our
> > society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
> characters
> > in a video game?
>
> How do you know it was accurate? Were you there? I do not advocate
> "softening" the facts....neither do I advocate exaggerating them for the
> shock value. And video games have nothing to do with it.
>
> >
> > Too often we are changing the names of things just so they don't sound
so
> > harsh. Do you know who can parking the Handicapped Parking places?
> Crippled
> > people. There, I said crippled because that is what most of them are.
I'm
> > not full figured, I'm fat. I know it and so do people that look at me.
> I'm
> > also not hirsute challenged, I'm going bald. No fancy names needed.
>
> This is all beside the point, as eloquently spoken as it may be. If it is
> historical accuracy you seek, that movie was not it. He had much more than
a
> 2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
> thing.
>

There's no way to get historical accuracy for this story. Remember, the
*only* accounts of the crucifixion - and of Jesus's entire life in fact -
were written well after the fact and underwent lots of editing, with both
writing and editing done by people who were trying to promote a religion.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Nexis" > wrote in message
news:TbO4c.12711$Nj.1748@fed1read01...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "Nexis" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > The movie was gratuitous in it's use of gore, there's no question
about
> > it.
> > > In attempting to drive home the suffering, Mr. Gibson went too far and
> > made
> > > the whole thing overwhelming and the result is that one ends up numbed
> in
> > > the process. It would have served the purpose better to have less
> graphic
> > > violence and blood,
> >
> >
> > So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
> was
> > typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
> there.
> > People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does
our
> > society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
> characters
> > in a video game?
>
> How do you know it was accurate? Were you there? I do not advocate
> "softening" the facts....neither do I advocate exaggerating them for the
> shock value. And video games have nothing to do with it.
>
> >
> > Too often we are changing the names of things just so they don't sound
so
> > harsh. Do you know who can parking the Handicapped Parking places?
> Crippled
> > people. There, I said crippled because that is what most of them are.
I'm
> > not full figured, I'm fat. I know it and so do people that look at me.
> I'm
> > also not hirsute challenged, I'm going bald. No fancy names needed.
>
> This is all beside the point, as eloquently spoken as it may be. If it is
> historical accuracy you seek, that movie was not it. He had much more than
a
> 2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
> thing.
>

There's no way to get historical accuracy for this story. Remember, the
*only* accounts of the crucifixion - and of Jesus's entire life in fact -
were written well after the fact and underwent lots of editing, with both
writing and editing done by people who were trying to promote a religion.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

> > > "Nexis" > wrote in message
> > > So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
> > was typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
> > there.
> > > People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does
> > > our society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
> > characters in a video game?

I read a letter to the editor in today's San Francisco Chronicle that
said, in effect, "If Gibson was so intent on making a historically
accurate film, why is it that Jesus looks like he's from Norway, instead
of the Middle East?"

Why, indeed. So much for the historical accuracy argument.

--
Donna
A pessimist believes all women are bad. An optimist hopes they are.

> > > "Nexis" > wrote in message
> > > So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
> > was typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
> > there.
> > > People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does
> > > our society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
> > characters in a video game?

I read a letter to the editor in today's San Francisco Chronicle that
said, in effect, "If Gibson was so intent on making a historically
accurate film, why is it that Jesus looks like he's from Norway, instead
of the Middle East?"

Why, indeed. So much for the historical accuracy argument.

--
Donna
A pessimist believes all women are bad. An optimist hopes they are.

Donna Rose wrote:

>>>>"Nexis" > wrote in message
>>>>So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
>>>
>>>was typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
>>>there.
>>>
>>>>People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does
>>>>our society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
>>>
>>>characters in a video game?
>
>
> I read a letter to the editor in today's San Francisco Chronicle that
> said, in effect, "If Gibson was so intent on making a historically
> accurate film, why is it that Jesus looks like he's from Norway, instead
> of the Middle East?"
>
> Why, indeed. So much for the historical accuracy argument.
>


Don't confuse bad casting with bad writing; they are not the same thing,
and one does not imply the other.

At least he used an actor that had some muscles -- like maybe he had done
physical labor for most of his life, rather than a scrawny girlie-man.

BTW, I think the dialog should have been in Aramaic and *Greek* rather than
Latin. If you're gonna nitpick, that would be a better one to pick at than
"that didn't really look like Jesus"

Best regards,
Bob

Donna Rose wrote:

>>>>"Nexis" > wrote in message
>>>>So Christ was not beaten as much? He did not bleed that much? If that
>>>
>>>was typical of the violence that took place, it is accurate and should be
>>>there.
>>>
>>>>People were truly barbaric and truly did things like that. Why does
>>>>our society soften real facts but let our kids blow the heads off of
>>>
>>>characters in a video game?
>
>
> I read a letter to the editor in today's San Francisco Chronicle that
> said, in effect, "If Gibson was so intent on making a historically
> accurate film, why is it that Jesus looks like he's from Norway, instead
> of the Middle East?"
>
> Why, indeed. So much for the historical accuracy argument.
>


Don't confuse bad casting with bad writing; they are not the same thing,
and one does not imply the other.

At least he used an actor that had some muscles -- like maybe he had done
physical labor for most of his life, rather than a scrawny girlie-man.

BTW, I think the dialog should have been in Aramaic and *Greek* rather than
Latin. If you're gonna nitpick, that would be a better one to pick at than
"that didn't really look like Jesus"

Best regards,
Bob

>At least he used an actor that had some muscles -- like maybe he had done
>physical labor for most of his life, rather than a scrawny girlie-man.

What's the reference for Christ the Savior ever having done a lick of work in
his life? All we know is that his father was a carpenter, not that he was
apprenticed as one. In fact, some of his more well-known remarks amount to
sneering at work and extolling the virtues of idleness; e.g., the superiority
of the rayment of the lilies of the field to that of Solomon in all his glory.

Neil

>At least he used an actor that had some muscles -- like maybe he had done
>physical labor for most of his life, rather than a scrawny girlie-man.

What's the reference for Christ the Savior ever having done a lick of work in
his life? All we know is that his father was a carpenter, not that he was
apprenticed as one. In fact, some of his more well-known remarks amount to
sneering at work and extolling the virtues of idleness; e.g., the superiority
of the rayment of the lilies of the field to that of Solomon in all his glory.

Neil

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:03:39 -0800, Nexis wrote:
[SNIP]
> This is all beside the point, as eloquently spoken as it may be. If it is
> historical accuracy you seek, that movie was not it. He had much more than a
> 2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
> thing.

Here's a report from the Archaeological Institute of America.

Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ
DR. ANDREA BERLIN AND DR. JODI MAGNESS*

Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ is hardly a
historical documentary. As the director himself asserts,
and reviewers, religious leaders, and audience members
agree, the movie is designed to bring to vivid life the nature
and magnitude of Jesus' sacrifice - an issue of theology
rather than history. We are not theologians, but rather
archaeologists specializing in the material remains and
history of Roman Palestine. As such, we can not speak to
the movie's moral message, or even to the aesthetic or
cinematic vision of the director. Some viewers may wonder,
however, about the historical accuracy with which events
and their settings are depicted. For those who are curious
about Gibson's fidelity to ancient sources, we offer the
following information.

LANGUAGE

How do we know what languages people actually spoke in
Roman Judaea? We have a lot of written evidence from the
region that is contemporary with the era of Jesus: papyri,
inscriptions, grafitti, and historical texts. From hundreds of
examples surviving from Roman Judaea, we can easily document
which languages people understood and used both in official
transactions and in their daily lives. The ancient evidence is
very clear on this point: the everyday language spoken by
the Jewish and Samaritan populations of Palestine in the time
of Jesus was Aramaic, while the official language for
administrative communication was Greek.Thus one of the
film's major historical inaccuracies is the use of Latin instead
of Greek. In the context of the movie, it may seem logical to
hear Roman soldiers and officials speak Latin. After all, by
the time of Jesus, Latin had long been the living language of
the population of Rome as well as of most of Italy. In
Judaea, however, nobody grew up speaking or even learning
Latin. While Roman soldiers and officials from Rome probably
did speak Latin among themselves, they would have used Greek
to communicate with members of the local ruling class, such as
Herod's family and the Jewish high priests. As a poor Jew,
Jesus presumably did not know Greek at all, and he certainly
would not have known Latin (in one scene in the movie, he speaks
with Pontius Pilate in Latin!).

COSTUMES

For this film to be an accurate depiction of Christ's crucifixion,
it would have to be rated X(NC-17). This is because crucified
victims were executed in the nude. In everyday life, men and
women alike wore tunics - a type of simple, one-piece dress,
belted at the waist, with a hole for the head and two holes for
the arms. A mantle (a large rectangular cloak) was worn over
the tunic, but on the shoulders, not over the head as shown in
the movie. Jewish men had tassels (called tzitzit) attached
to the corners of their mantles. Long (ankle-length) tunics
were worn by men for ceremonial purposes (for example, by
priests) as well as by women, and short (knee-length) tunics
were worn by slaves, soldiers, and for purposes of work,
where mobility was required. Nothing (no underwear) was
worn under tunics, except by Essene men who wore a loin
cloth.

Jewish men did not have long hair, unless they were Nazirites
(fulfilling a Nazirite vow). Jewish women in Roman Judea wore
hairnets, examples of which have been discovered at sites such
as Masada. In the film, Jesus's mother Mary is played by a
handsome actress who appears to be in her 40's. Assuming that
Mary gave birth to Jesus when she was very young (about 12-
13 years of age), she indeed would have been in her 40's when
Jesus died. However, a 40-some-thing year old woman in Roman
Judaea, especially from a poor family, would have looked much
older than a 40-something year old woman in contemporary
Western society. Mary probably would have looked like a 60-
something year old woman does today.

TORTURE METHODS

Written evidence from the time of Jesus reveals that torture
was not only carried out but actually regulated under the Roman
state. A stone inscription found in the modern Italian town of
Pozzuoli (ancient Puteoli), dating to the first century C.E.,
details regulations for the hiring of people to torture or execute
slaves, whether by court order or in response to anowner's request:
[Members of t]he workforce which shall be provided for ...
inflicting punishment ...[are] to be over fifty years of age or
under twenty, no[t] to have any sores, be one-eyed, maimed,
lame, blind, or branded. The contractor is to have no fewer
than thirty-two operatives. If anyone wishes to have a slave -
male or female - punished privately, he who wishes to have the
punishment inflicted shall do so as follows. If he wants to put
the slave on the cross or fork, the contractor must supply
the posts, chains, ropes for floggers, and the floggers
themselves. ... The magistrate shall give orders for such
punishments as he exacts in his public capacity, and when
orders are given (the contractor) is to be ready to exact
the punishment. He is to set up crosses and supply without
charge nails, pitch, wax, tapers, and anything else that is
necessary for this in order to deal with the condemned
man ...(The Roman World: A Sourcebook, David Cherry,
editor, Blackwell Publishers 2001, pp. 26-27; text translation
from J. F. Gardiner and T.Wiedemann, The Roman Household:
A Sourcebook, London 1991, pp. 24-26).The description in
this inscription is similar to another given by the ancient
Roman historian Suetonius. In his biography of Nero,
Suetonius described the Roman Senate's decree of death
for the emperor more maiorum (i.e., in the traditional manner),
that is by "having his head put in a wooden fork and being
beaten to death by rods" (Nero 49.2; Suetonius goes onto
say that Nero was so frightened by this sentence that he
committed suicide before it could be imposed.). It should
be noted that at this time such regulations were the
responsibility of civil jurisdictions. An empire-wide
standard did not exist. We do not know what regulations,
if any, existed in Roman Judaea. Pontius Pilate, the Roman
governor who sentenced Jesus, would have had some latitude
in devising and carrying out the punishment he decreed.
While "flogging" and "beating" are attested in ancient
sources, however, there are neither descriptions, pictorial
representations, nor physical evidence for the brutal
implement that is used at length and to such horrific effect
in The Passion's "scourging" scenes. Scourging as a practice
is attested but the only weapon ever cited is a reed (Mark
15:19; Matt. 27:30). The Gospels are in fact quite terse in
their rendition: "... after having Jesus scourged, he [Pilate]
delivered Him over to be crucified" (Mark 15:15; cf. Matt.
27:26). Had Jesus been tortured in an exceptional manner
(that is, had he been treated more harshly and differently
than other crucifixion victims), this would presumably have
been mentioned in the Gospels. The armed Jewish guards
shown in the movie accompanying the high priests, who
arrest and abuse Jesus, are pure fantasy (as are their
costumes). The Romans would never have allowed the Jews
to have their own army. Instead, the Gospels describe Jesus
as being arrested by a "crowd of men with swords and clubs"
(Mark 14: 43; Matt. 26:47, refers to a "great crowd").

CRUCIFIXION

Crucifixion was a standard method of execution in the ancient
world (see the text above under "Torture Methods," which refers
to putting a slave "on the cross"). It was generally used against
slaves, traitors, and members of the lower classes who were
convicted of political crimes. The most dramatic example from
Roman history may be the mass crucifixion of 6,000 gladiators
and slaves at the end of the revolt of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.E.).
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records two episodes of
mass crucifixion from Israel. In 88 B.C.E. the Hasmonean king
Alexander Jannaeus ordered 800 enemy captives crucified, while
in the year 4 B.C.E., Quintilius Varus, the Roman officer in charge
of the province of Syria, ordered the crucifixion of 2,000 Jews
who had rebelled against Roman rule upon the death of King Herod.
Later, during the Jewish revolt and war against the Romans from
66-70 C.E., the Roman commanders Vespasian and his son Titus
both ordered crucifixion executions as public warnings and
deterrents. (Josephus recounts these episodes in two of his
historical works, both written in the later first century C.E.
when he was living in Rome. They are the Jewish Antiquities and
the Jewish War: Ant. 13.380; War 1.97; 2.75; 3.321; 5.289;
5.450-51). There is physical evidence attesting to the practice
of crucifixion in first century Judaea. In 1968, an ossuary (bone
box) of the first century C.E. excavated from a large rock-cut
burial cave at the site of Giv'at ha-Mivtar, in northeast
Jerusalem, was found to contain the bones of a young man
who had been crucified. The evidence consisted of a right
heel bone pierced by a nail 4 1/2 inches long. The end of the
nail was bent, or hooked, apparently because it hadbeen
driven against a knot in the upright beam of the cross; and
this prevented its removal afterwards (Vassilios Tzaferis,
"Jewish Tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar," Israel
Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 18-32; J. Zias and E.
Sekeles, "The Crucified Man from Giv'at ha-Mivtar: A
Reappraisal," Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1985), pp.
22-27). There are two inaccuracies in the depiction of
Jesus's crucifixion in this film. First, those sentenced to
crucifixion apparently carried only the crossbeam, not the
entire cross, to the site of the crucifixion. Second, many
victims were tied by ropes to the cross, not nailed. In cases
where victims were nailed, the nails were placed through
the wrists, not the palms ofthe hands. Not every ancient
society employed crucifixion as the standard method of
execution, however. Were Jesus to have been tried and
condemned by a Jewish court for violating Jewish law,
he would have been executed by stoning, burning,
decapitation, or strangulation, depending on the charge.
In Roman Judaea, only the Romans (and specifically, the
Roman provincial governor) had the authority to impose
the penalty of crucifixion.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Even if The Passion adhered in every detail to the specific
narratives of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke) or the Gospel of John, it would be neither accurate
nor fair to take these texts as "scripts" for the arrest,
trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. That is because these texts
were not written down at the time, nor were they written
by actual witnesses of these events. Instead they were
composed two generations later and hundreds of miles away:
between 70 and 90 C.E., and outside of the area of the
Levant. Because the Gospel authors were writing for an
audience who did not live at the time or in the place of
the events they were narrating, they worked to put the
events of Jesus' trial and death within the larger historical
context of his life and mission. In his own narrative choices,
however, Mel Gibson has chosen to ignore what the Gospel
writers strove to supply. By focusing on the last 12 hours
of Jesus's life, Gibson has ripped this event from its
historical context and rendered it unintelligible, with no
apparent reason for the crucifixion of Jesus aside from
blaming evil Jews and Romans. Perhaps this is deliberate
and intended to serve a theological purpose. But historically
it means that viewers are left without any understanding
of the complex events that led up to these last 12 hours.
In the first century C.E., the population of Roman Judaea
and its adjacent areas of Idumaea, Samaria, and Galilee
was comprised of numerous groups, factions, and sects,
divided variously along ethnic, class, and religious lines.
These areas were not an ancient version of the modern
American "melting pot," however, but instead a tinderbox
of instability. There were tensions between the Jews and
the Roman occupying forces, and between the Jews and
non-Jewish (Gentile) inhabitants of the country. Galileans
and Judaeans fought with Samaritans, and Samaritans
attacked Galilean pilgrims. Jews were divided along
religious and class lines into groups such as the Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes. These Jewish groups - including
Jesus and his followers - argued about religious laws and
rituals, as well as about adopting Greek and Roman cultural
traditions. Many Jews organized political oreconomic
movements against their Roman rulers. Meanwhile those
rulers made sure that an outsized military presence loomed
over all Jewish festival gatherings. Thus it is as historically
inaccurate to present the Jews as a single, monolithic group
as it would be to present modernAmerican Protestants as
such. For both the Roman officials and the politically
accommodating Jewish high priests, any person who
threatened the precarious balance presented a social and
political problem. During the Passover festival, which was
a period of huge crowding in the city, the Roman governor
and army were especially nervous about civil disturbances.
With his outburst in theTemple and an enormous crowd
coalescing around him, Jesus would naturally have been seen
by both Roman officials and Jewish high priests as a
dangerous and even destabilizing individual. As a poor Jewish
peasant from Galilee speaking out in opposition to the wealthy
high priests of the Jerusalem Temple, Jesus would have had
allies and supporters among the large numbers of the politically
powerless, but not among the small group of the well-connected
political elite. This background is essential to understanding
why Jesus was condemned and crucified so quickly: in order
to minimize the civic disruption that a prolonged and public
trial might engender. The fact that Jesus died by a method
of execution that only a Roman official could impose also
reveals which authority figure - the Jewish high priest or
the Roman governor - was in reality the more threatened by
his actions. As director of The Passion of the Christ, Mel
Gibson was compelled to make narrative choices: when and
where to start the story, what to emphasize, how to draw out
each person's essential characteristics. The end result is a
movie that conveys a tremendous amount of pain and suffering,
but also one that is, in many major and minor respects,
unmoored from documented realities. Gibson strives to
convey a theological message by recreating a convincing
ancient context. The message that people take away from
the movie should not, however, be mistaken for verifiable
historical fact.

NOTES*

Dr. Andrea Berlin, Associate Professor at the University
of Minnesota, is an Academic Trusteeof the Archaeological
Institute of America; Dr. Jodi Magness, Distinguished
Professor at the Univer-sity of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, is a former Academic Trustee.


Doug

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:03:39 -0800, Nexis wrote:
[SNIP]
> This is all beside the point, as eloquently spoken as it may be. If it is
> historical accuracy you seek, that movie was not it. He had much more than a
> 2 sentence conversation with Pilates according to the scripture, for one
> thing.

Here's a report from the Archaeological Institute of America.

Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ
DR. ANDREA BERLIN AND DR. JODI MAGNESS*

Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ is hardly a
historical documentary. As the director himself asserts,
and reviewers, religious leaders, and audience members
agree, the movie is designed to bring to vivid life the nature
and magnitude of Jesus' sacrifice - an issue of theology
rather than history. We are not theologians, but rather
archaeologists specializing in the material remains and
history of Roman Palestine. As such, we can not speak to
the movie's moral message, or even to the aesthetic or
cinematic vision of the director. Some viewers may wonder,
however, about the historical accuracy with which events
and their settings are depicted. For those who are curious
about Gibson's fidelity to ancient sources, we offer the
following information.

LANGUAGE

How do we know what languages people actually spoke in
Roman Judaea? We have a lot of written evidence from the
region that is contemporary with the era of Jesus: papyri,
inscriptions, grafitti, and historical texts. From hundreds of
examples surviving from Roman Judaea, we can easily document
which languages people understood and used both in official
transactions and in their daily lives. The ancient evidence is
very clear on this point: the everyday language spoken by
the Jewish and Samaritan populations of Palestine in the time
of Jesus was Aramaic, while the official language for
administrative communication was Greek.Thus one of the
film's major historical inaccuracies is the use of Latin instead
of Greek. In the context of the movie, it may seem logical to
hear Roman soldiers and officials speak Latin. After all, by
the time of Jesus, Latin had long been the living language of
the population of Rome as well as of most of Italy. In
Judaea, however, nobody grew up speaking or even learning
Latin. While Roman soldiers and officials from Rome probably
did speak Latin among themselves, they would have used Greek
to communicate with members of the local ruling class, such as
Herod's family and the Jewish high priests. As a poor Jew,
Jesus presumably did not know Greek at all, and he certainly
would not have known Latin (in one scene in the movie, he speaks
with Pontius Pilate in Latin!).

COSTUMES

For this film to be an accurate depiction of Christ's crucifixion,
it would have to be rated X(NC-17). This is because crucified
victims were executed in the nude. In everyday life, men and
women alike wore tunics - a type of simple, one-piece dress,
belted at the waist, with a hole for the head and two holes for
the arms. A mantle (a large rectangular cloak) was worn over
the tunic, but on the shoulders, not over the head as shown in
the movie. Jewish men had tassels (called tzitzit) attached
to the corners of their mantles. Long (ankle-length) tunics
were worn by men for ceremonial purposes (for example, by
priests) as well as by women, and short (knee-length) tunics
were worn by slaves, soldiers, and for purposes of work,
where mobility was required. Nothing (no underwear) was
worn under tunics, except by Essene men who wore a loin
cloth.

Jewish men did not have long hair, unless they were Nazirites
(fulfilling a Nazirite vow). Jewish women in Roman Judea wore
hairnets, examples of which have been discovered at sites such
as Masada. In the film, Jesus's mother Mary is played by a
handsome actress who appears to be in her 40's. Assuming that
Mary gave birth to Jesus when she was very young (about 12-
13 years of age), she indeed would have been in her 40's when
Jesus died. However, a 40-some-thing year old woman in Roman
Judaea, especially from a poor family, would have looked much
older than a 40-something year old woman in contemporary
Western society. Mary probably would have looked like a 60-
something year old woman does today.

TORTURE METHODS

Written evidence from the time of Jesus reveals that torture
was not only carried out but actually regulated under the Roman
state. A stone inscription found in the modern Italian town of
Pozzuoli (ancient Puteoli), dating to the first century C.E.,
details regulations for the hiring of people to torture or execute
slaves, whether by court order or in response to anowner's request:
[Members of t]he workforce which shall be provided for ...
inflicting punishment ...[are] to be over fifty years of age or
under twenty, no[t] to have any sores, be one-eyed, maimed,
lame, blind, or branded. The contractor is to have no fewer
than thirty-two operatives. If anyone wishes to have a slave -
male or female - punished privately, he who wishes to have the
punishment inflicted shall do so as follows. If he wants to put
the slave on the cross or fork, the contractor must supply
the posts, chains, ropes for floggers, and the floggers
themselves. ... The magistrate shall give orders for such
punishments as he exacts in his public capacity, and when
orders are given (the contractor) is to be ready to exact
the punishment. He is to set up crosses and supply without
charge nails, pitch, wax, tapers, and anything else that is
necessary for this in order to deal with the condemned
man ...(The Roman World: A Sourcebook, David Cherry,
editor, Blackwell Publishers 2001, pp. 26-27; text translation
from J. F. Gardiner and T.Wiedemann, The Roman Household:
A Sourcebook, London 1991, pp. 24-26).The description in
this inscription is similar to another given by the ancient
Roman historian Suetonius. In his biography of Nero,
Suetonius described the Roman Senate's decree of death
for the emperor more maiorum (i.e., in the traditional manner),
that is by "having his head put in a wooden fork and being
beaten to death by rods" (Nero 49.2; Suetonius goes onto
say that Nero was so frightened by this sentence that he
committed suicide before it could be imposed.). It should
be noted that at this time such regulations were the
responsibility of civil jurisdictions. An empire-wide
standard did not exist. We do not know what regulations,
if any, existed in Roman Judaea. Pontius Pilate, the Roman
governor who sentenced Jesus, would have had some latitude
in devising and carrying out the punishment he decreed.
While "flogging" and "beating" are attested in ancient
sources, however, there are neither descriptions, pictorial
representations, nor physical evidence for the brutal
implement that is used at length and to such horrific effect
in The Passion's "scourging" scenes. Scourging as a practice
is attested but the only weapon ever cited is a reed (Mark
15:19; Matt. 27:30). The Gospels are in fact quite terse in
their rendition: "... after having Jesus scourged, he [Pilate]
delivered Him over to be crucified" (Mark 15:15; cf. Matt.
27:26). Had Jesus been tortured in an exceptional manner
(that is, had he been treated more harshly and differently
than other crucifixion victims), this would presumably have
been mentioned in the Gospels. The armed Jewish guards
shown in the movie accompanying the high priests, who
arrest and abuse Jesus, are pure fantasy (as are their
costumes). The Romans would never have allowed the Jews
to have their own army. Instead, the Gospels describe Jesus
as being arrested by a "crowd of men with swords and clubs"
(Mark 14: 43; Matt. 26:47, refers to a "great crowd").

CRUCIFIXION

Crucifixion was a standard method of execution in the ancient
world (see the text above under "Torture Methods," which refers
to putting a slave "on the cross"). It was generally used against
slaves, traitors, and members of the lower classes who were
convicted of political crimes. The most dramatic example from
Roman history may be the mass crucifixion of 6,000 gladiators
and slaves at the end of the revolt of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.E.).
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records two episodes of
mass crucifixion from Israel. In 88 B.C.E. the Hasmonean king
Alexander Jannaeus ordered 800 enemy captives crucified, while
in the year 4 B.C.E., Quintilius Varus, the Roman officer in charge
of the province of Syria, ordered the crucifixion of 2,000 Jews
who had rebelled against Roman rule upon the death of King Herod.
Later, during the Jewish revolt and war against the Romans from
66-70 C.E., the Roman commanders Vespasian and his son Titus
both ordered crucifixion executions as public warnings and
deterrents. (Josephus recounts these episodes in two of his
historical works, both written in the later first century C.E.
when he was living in Rome. They are the Jewish Antiquities and
the Jewish War: Ant. 13.380; War 1.97; 2.75; 3.321; 5.289;
5.450-51). There is physical evidence attesting to the practice
of crucifixion in first century Judaea. In 1968, an ossuary (bone
box) of the first century C.E. excavated from a large rock-cut
burial cave at the site of Giv'at ha-Mivtar, in northeast
Jerusalem, was found to contain the bones of a young man
who had been crucified. The evidence consisted of a right
heel bone pierced by a nail 4 1/2 inches long. The end of the
nail was bent, or hooked, apparently because it hadbeen
driven against a knot in the upright beam of the cross; and
this prevented its removal afterwards (Vassilios Tzaferis,
"Jewish Tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar," Israel
Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 18-32; J. Zias and E.
Sekeles, "The Crucified Man from Giv'at ha-Mivtar: A
Reappraisal," Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1985), pp.
22-27). There are two inaccuracies in the depiction of
Jesus's crucifixion in this film. First, those sentenced to
crucifixion apparently carried only the crossbeam, not the
entire cross, to the site of the crucifixion. Second, many
victims were tied by ropes to the cross, not nailed. In cases
where victims were nailed, the nails were placed through
the wrists, not the palms ofthe hands. Not every ancient
society employed crucifixion as the standard method of
execution, however. Were Jesus to have been tried and
condemned by a Jewish court for violating Jewish law,
he would have been executed by stoning, burning,
decapitation, or strangulation, depending on the charge.
In Roman Judaea, only the Romans (and specifically, the
Roman provincial governor) had the authority to impose
the penalty of crucifixion.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Even if The Passion adhered in every detail to the specific
narratives of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke) or the Gospel of John, it would be neither accurate
nor fair to take these texts as "scripts" for the arrest,
trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. That is because these texts
were not written down at the time, nor were they written
by actual witnesses of these events. Instead they were
composed two generations later and hundreds of miles away:
between 70 and 90 C.E., and outside of the area of the
Levant. Because the Gospel authors were writing for an
audience who did not live at the time or in the place of
the events they were narrating, they worked to put the
events of Jesus' trial and death within the larger historical
context of his life and mission. In his own narrative choices,
however, Mel Gibson has chosen to ignore what the Gospel
writers strove to supply. By focusing on the last 12 hours
of Jesus's life, Gibson has ripped this event from its
historical context and rendered it unintelligible, with no
apparent reason for the crucifixion of Jesus aside from
blaming evil Jews and Romans. Perhaps this is deliberate
and intended to serve a theological purpose. But historically
it means that viewers are left without any understanding
of the complex events that led up to these last 12 hours.
In the first century C.E., the population of Roman Judaea
and its adjacent areas of Idumaea, Samaria, and Galilee
was comprised of numerous groups, factions, and sects,
divided variously along ethnic, class, and religious lines.
These areas were not an ancient version of the modern
American "melting pot," however, but instead a tinderbox
of instability. There were tensions between the Jews and
the Roman occupying forces, and between the Jews and
non-Jewish (Gentile) inhabitants of the country. Galileans
and Judaeans fought with Samaritans, and Samaritans
attacked Galilean pilgrims. Jews were divided along
religious and class lines into groups such as the Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes. These Jewish groups - including
Jesus and his followers - argued about religious laws and
rituals, as well as about adopting Greek and Roman cultural
traditions. Many Jews organized political oreconomic
movements against their Roman rulers. Meanwhile those
rulers made sure that an outsized military presence loomed
over all Jewish festival gatherings. Thus it is as historically
inaccurate to present the Jews as a single, monolithic group
as it would be to present modernAmerican Protestants as
such. For both the Roman officials and the politically
accommodating Jewish high priests, any person who
threatened the precarious balance presented a social and
political problem. During the Passover festival, which was
a period of huge crowding in the city, the Roman governor
and army were especially nervous about civil disturbances.
With his outburst in theTemple and an enormous crowd
coalescing around him, Jesus would naturally have been seen
by both Roman officials and Jewish high priests as a
dangerous and even destabilizing individual. As a poor Jewish
peasant from Galilee speaking out in opposition to the wealthy
high priests of the Jerusalem Temple, Jesus would have had
allies and supporters among the large numbers of the politically
powerless, but not among the small group of the well-connected
political elite. This background is essential to understanding
why Jesus was condemned and crucified so quickly: in order
to minimize the civic disruption that a prolonged and public
trial might engender. The fact that Jesus died by a method
of execution that only a Roman official could impose also
reveals which authority figure - the Jewish high priest or
the Roman governor - was in reality the more threatened by
his actions. As director of The Passion of the Christ, Mel
Gibson was compelled to make narrative choices: when and
where to start the story, what to emphasize, how to draw out
each person's essential characteristics. The end result is a
movie that conveys a tremendous amount of pain and suffering,
but also one that is, in many major and minor respects,
unmoored from documented realities. Gibson strives to
convey a theological message by recreating a convincing
ancient context. The message that people take away from
the movie should not, however, be mistaken for verifiable
historical fact.

NOTES*

Dr. Andrea Berlin, Associate Professor at the University
of Minnesota, is an Academic Trusteeof the Archaeological
Institute of America; Dr. Jodi Magness, Distinguished
Professor at the Univer-sity of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, is a former Academic Trustee.


Doug

"Doug Weller" <
<snip>
:
: COSTUMES
:
: For this film to be an accurate depiction of Christ's
crucifixion,
: it would have to be rated X(NC-17). This is because crucified
: victims were executed in the nude. In everyday life, men and
: women alike wore tunics - a type of simple, one-piece dress,
: belted at the waist, with a hole for the head and two holes for
: the arms. A mantle (a large rectangular cloak) was worn over
: the tunic, but on the shoulders, not over the head as shown in
: the movie. Jewish men had tassels (called tzitzit) attached
: to the corners of their mantles. Long (ankle-length) tunics
: were worn by men for ceremonial purposes (for example, by
: priests) as well as by women, and short (knee-length) tunics
: were worn by slaves, soldiers, and for purposes of work,
: where mobility was required. Nothing (no underwear) was
: worn under tunics, except by Essene men who wore a loin
: cloth.
:
<snip>:
: Doug
====================

I'm not familiar with "Essene" - is that a similar word for High
Priests? I'm guessing that because in the early books of the
Bible, it mentions during Moses leading the people through the
desert - how the High Priests that were in the Tabernacle wore
required to wear linen (?) undergarments... Unfortunately, I've
got to run so I can't look up the exact verses... I'll try to do
that later today unless somebody beats me to it.

Wow, that was a lot of information Doug!


Cyndi

"Doug Weller" <
<snip>
:
: COSTUMES
:
: For this film to be an accurate depiction of Christ's
crucifixion,
: it would have to be rated X(NC-17). This is because crucified
: victims were executed in the nude. In everyday life, men and
: women alike wore tunics - a type of simple, one-piece dress,
: belted at the waist, with a hole for the head and two holes for
: the arms. A mantle (a large rectangular cloak) was worn over
: the tunic, but on the shoulders, not over the head as shown in
: the movie. Jewish men had tassels (called tzitzit) attached
: to the corners of their mantles. Long (ankle-length) tunics
: were worn by men for ceremonial purposes (for example, by
: priests) as well as by women, and short (knee-length) tunics
: were worn by slaves, soldiers, and for purposes of work,
: where mobility was required. Nothing (no underwear) was
: worn under tunics, except by Essene men who wore a loin
: cloth.
:
<snip>:
: Doug
====================

I'm not familiar with "Essene" - is that a similar word for High
Priests? I'm guessing that because in the early books of the
Bible, it mentions during Moses leading the people through the
desert - how the High Priests that were in the Tabernacle wore
required to wear linen (?) undergarments... Unfortunately, I've
got to run so I can't look up the exact verses... I'll try to do
that later today unless somebody beats me to it.

Wow, that was a lot of information Doug!


Cyndi

Rick & Cyndi wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with "Essene" - is that a similar word for High
> Priests? I'm guessing that because in the early books of the
> Bible, it mentions during Moses leading the people through the
> desert - how the High Priests that were in the Tabernacle wore
> required to wear linen (?) undergarments... Unfortunately, I've
> got to run so I can't look up the exact verses... I'll try to do
> that later today unless somebody beats me to it.
>
> Wow, that was a lot of information Doug!
>
> Cyndi


Here's a description of the Essenes:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm

Best regards,
Bob

Rick & Cyndi wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with "Essene" - is that a similar word for High
> Priests? I'm guessing that because in the early books of the
> Bible, it mentions during Moses leading the people through the
> desert - how the High Priests that were in the Tabernacle wore
> required to wear linen (?) undergarments... Unfortunately, I've
> got to run so I can't look up the exact verses... I'll try to do
> that later today unless somebody beats me to it.
>
> Wow, that was a lot of information Doug!
>
> Cyndi


Here's a description of the Essenes:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
: Rick & Cyndi wrote:
: >
: > I'm not familiar with "Essene" - is that a similar word for
High
: > Priests? I'm guessing that because in the early books of the
: > Bible, it mentions during Moses leading the people through
the
: > desert - how the High Priests that were in the Tabernacle
wore
: > required to wear linen (?) undergarments... Unfortunately,
I've
: > got to run so I can't look up the exact verses... I'll try
to do
: > that later today unless somebody beats me to it.
: >
: > Wow, that was a lot of information Doug!
: >
: > Cyndi
:
:
: Here's a description of the Essenes:
: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
:
: Best regards,
: Bob
======

Thank you sir. Not being Catholic, I'd never have thought to
look there. Cool.


--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
: Rick & Cyndi wrote:
: >
: > I'm not familiar with "Essene" - is that a similar word for
High
: > Priests? I'm guessing that because in the early books of the
: > Bible, it mentions during Moses leading the people through
the
: > desert - how the High Priests that were in the Tabernacle
wore
: > required to wear linen (?) undergarments... Unfortunately,
I've
: > got to run so I can't look up the exact verses... I'll try
to do
: > that later today unless somebody beats me to it.
: >
: > Wow, that was a lot of information Doug!
: >
: > Cyndi
:
:
: Here's a description of the Essenes:
: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
:
: Best regards,
: Bob
======

Thank you sir. Not being Catholic, I'd never have thought to
look there. Cool.


--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

Rick & Cyndi wrote:

> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...

> :
> : Here's a description of the Essenes:
> : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
> :
> : Best regards,
> : Bob
> ======
>
> Thank you sir. Not being Catholic, I'd never have thought to
> look there. Cool.
>
>


I'm Baptist; I did a search on "Essenes" and that Catholic page was by far
the most balanced and authoritative. It also matches the *tiny* bit of
knowledge I had already about the Essenes.

Best regards,
Bob

Rick & Cyndi wrote:

> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...

> :
> : Here's a description of the Essenes:
> : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
> :
> : Best regards,
> : Bob
> ======
>
> Thank you sir. Not being Catholic, I'd never have thought to
> look there. Cool.
>
>


I'm Baptist; I did a search on "Essenes" and that Catholic page was by far
the most balanced and authoritative. It also matches the *tiny* bit of
knowledge I had already about the Essenes.

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" & Cyndi wrote:

: > : Here's a description of the Essenes:
: > : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
: > :
: > : Best regards,
: > : Bob
: > ======
: >
: > Thank you sir. Not being Catholic, I'd never have thought to
: > look there. Cool.

:
: I'm Baptist; I did a search on "Essenes" and that Catholic page
was by far
: the most balanced and authoritative. It also matches the
*tiny* bit of
: knowledge I had already about the Essenes.
:
: Best regards,
: Bob
======

<shrug> Makes sense... Normally, I Google most unknowns but was
running way behind schedule this morning. I left the message
'unread' so that I'd check on it later today. Thank you again
for providing the information on Essenes.

I've been trying to do the 'read the Bible in one year' and knew
that I hadn't come across "Essenes" but did remember about the
Levites being chosen by God as care keepers of the Tabernacle and
remembered how He instructed Aaron and the other high priests as
to what to wear when administrating... Hmmm, I guess the Gingko
is helping after all. LOL
--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

"zxcvbob" & Cyndi wrote:

: > : Here's a description of the Essenes:
: > : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
: > :
: > : Best regards,
: > : Bob
: > ======
: >
: > Thank you sir. Not being Catholic, I'd never have thought to
: > look there. Cool.

:
: I'm Baptist; I did a search on "Essenes" and that Catholic page
was by far
: the most balanced and authoritative. It also matches the
*tiny* bit of
: knowledge I had already about the Essenes.
:
: Best regards,
: Bob
======

<shrug> Makes sense... Normally, I Google most unknowns but was
running way behind schedule this morning. I left the message
'unread' so that I'd check on it later today. Thank you again
for providing the information on Essenes.

I've been trying to do the 'read the Bible in one year' and knew
that I hadn't come across "Essenes" but did remember about the
Levites being chosen by God as care keepers of the Tabernacle and
remembered how He instructed Aaron and the other high priests as
to what to wear when administrating... Hmmm, I guess the Gingko
is helping after all. LOL
--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:59:45 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:

Always loved you, Sue! Don't leave us!

I recall a thing in a play called "the
curious savage", in which a curiously wise
woman is committed to an asylum.

Visited by one of her children, they note
that all the newspapers are outdated.

Her (insane) response..... yes, tragedy is
*SO* much easier to deal with when one can
do nothing about it, isn't it?

So for the Passion. The more distant it is,
the easier it is to deal with.

Gibson brought this event into our collective
face, taking us back to the same time and
languages.

Now, let so-called Christians look away and
say that this was not necessary. As was
suggested, a Crucifixion 2000 years ago
is *easy* to digest. (OB Food? Here is my body?)

Just my opinion.... as a Unitarian.

A-