Gibson's Passion

This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
think unnecessarily so.

Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
IIRC).

It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).

Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
these accounts is shocking.

-Carl

On Wednesday 17 March 2004 06:24 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
> think unnecessarily so.
>
> Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
> biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
> wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
> Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
> IIRC).
>
> It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
> quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
> characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
> best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
> Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).
>
> Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
> particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
> a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
> contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
> these accounts is shocking.

Carl,

This is an excellent review of a film I have no desire or curiosity to see. My
decision is based on 2 principles:

1) to absolutely refuse to line the pockets of any Christian Fundamentalist
assholes anywhere in the world.

2) to boycott any Christian Fundamentalist religious expression, and religion
in general, which is the root of all ills and all evils in this world. I am a
born-again atheist. I was found, and now I'm lost. Amen.

-Aaron.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

on 3/17/04 7:16 PM, Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...> wrote:

> On Wednesday 17 March 2004 06:24 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
>> think unnecessarily so.
>>
>> Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
>> biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
>> wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
>> Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
>> IIRC).
>>
>> It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
>> quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
>> characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
>> best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
>> Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).
>>
>> Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
>> particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
>> a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
>> contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
>> these accounts is shocking.
>
> Carl,
>
> This is an excellent review of a film I have no desire or curiosity to see. My
> decision is based on 2 principles:
>
> 1) to absolutely refuse to line the pockets of any Christian Fundamentalist
> assholes anywhere in the world.
>
> 2) to boycott any Christian Fundamentalist religious expression, and religion
> in general, which is the root of all ills and all evils in this world. I am a
> born-again atheist. I was found, and now I'm lost. Amen.

Just because you are against religion doesn't mean you have to be an
athiest! ;)

In any case, to me the word athiest has a literal meaning which I'm
*guessing* is what you are using. But for me it also has a connotation of a
refusal to acknowledge the possibility of any organizing principle beyond
the individual, which I think is a mistake, if not one of the primary
mistakes people in this time in history are involved in. I figured for some
reason no one would say they are an athiest unless they really mean to deny
all that as well. And "all that" is something that I sometimes call "god"
although I think of this as a metaphor. But I have no problem with the
metaphor nor the fairly free use of it as long as I believe it is working as
a "signpost" within a dialog. That's what words are for, after all. Thus,
I am in this sense not an athiest, because I do not deny the metaphor, nor
do I claim that the metaphor has no actual referent. But I do not claim to
know the nature of that referent.

Meanwhile I am very tolerant of religion if I believe people came upon it
innocently and with no intention to do damage. ;) But I won't tolerate
good intentions quietly either if I see damage being done. And in fact I
see a lot of damage being done, some of it quite subtle. So I have a lot to
say to the religious. But I know better than to just polarize myself
stupidly against them. So I go back to my tolerance and hope to have a good
balance whenever the opportunity for dialog comes up.

-Kurt

>
> -Aaron.
>

On Thursday 18 March 2004 01:39 am, Kurt Bigler wrote:
> on 3/17/04 7:16 PM, Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 March 2004 06:24 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
> >> think unnecessarily so.
> >>
> >> Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
> >> biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
> >> wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
> >> Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
> >> IIRC).
> >>
> >> It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
> >> quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
> >> characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
> >> best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
> >> Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).
> >>
> >> Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
> >> particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
> >> a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
> >> contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
> >> these accounts is shocking.
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > This is an excellent review of a film I have no desire or curiosity to
> > see. My decision is based on 2 principles:
> >
> > 1) to absolutely refuse to line the pockets of any Christian
> > Fundamentalist assholes anywhere in the world.
> >
> > 2) to boycott any Christian Fundamentalist religious expression, and
> > religion in general, which is the root of all ills and all evils in this
> > world. I am a born-again atheist. I was found, and now I'm lost. Amen.
>
> Just because you are against religion doesn't mean you have to be an
> athiest! ;)

You're right, but in my case, I am both against religion and an atheist ;)

> In any case, to me the word athiest has a literal meaning which I'm
> *guessing* is what you are using.

Atheist means 'disbelief in God'. That's how I'm using it.

> But for me it also has a connotation of
> a refusal to acknowledge the possibility of any organizing principle beyond
> the individual, which I think is a mistake, if not one of the primary
> mistakes people in this time in history are involved in.

Where do you jump to the conclusion that I deny any organizing principle
beyond the individual? Does everything that is organizational automagically
become God-fodder?

> I figured for
> some reason no one would say they are an athiest unless they really mean to
> deny all that as well.

Well, as you admit, YOU added this extra meaning, not I.

> And "all that" is something that I sometimes call
> "god" although I think of this as a metaphor. But I have no problem with
> the metaphor nor the fairly free use of it as long as I believe it is
> working as a "signpost" within a dialog. That's what words are for, after
> all. Thus, I am in this sense not an athiest, because I do not deny the
> metaphor, nor do I claim that the metaphor has no actual referent. But I
> do not claim to know the nature of that referent.
>
> Meanwhile I am very tolerant of religion if I believe people came upon it
> innocently and with no intention to do damage. ;)

I think coming upon something innocently can still be very damaging. Happening
to be born a Muslim in a Fundamentalist Afghan Taliban is innocent enough. So
you would forgive the average Al-Qaeda terrorist for their actions? By this
logic, no one is responsible for their innocent assumptions !

> But I won't tolerate
> good intentions quietly either if I see damage being done. And in fact I
> see a lot of damage being done, some of it quite subtle. So I have a lot
> to say to the religious.

These people's good intentions include things like removing references from
evolution from science textbooks, and putting Bible verses up in place of
geological explanations at the Grand Canyon. And voting for
environment-destroying, corporate-greed club, Christian-right-wing Bush
administrations. Unless you believe scientific truth is relative, these kind
of actions are utterly unforgivable and simply fucked up beyond
comprehension, not to mention based on the lowest common denominator of human
behavior: fear and pride.

> But I know better than to just polarize myself
> stupidly against them. So I go back to my tolerance and hope to have a
> good balance whenever the opportunity for dialog comes up.

If you are implying that I'm somehow 'polarizing stupidly', then you are
intitled to you opinion, which I will politely ignore.

Other than that, I feel no reason to justify my belief in cosmic truth and
honesty above false mythology to anyone, either the religious or the
apologists to the religious.

It's a long way from 'cosmic organizing principle' to 'Thou shalt worship the
God of Abraham and Jacob', or 'You will burn in a lake of fire if you do not
accept the blood of Christ'.

-Aaron.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

what gets me is the people comming out of the theatres saying "oooh, to
think he suffered like that for us!" As if some dude getting nailed to a
tree 2000 years ago is more relevant than the Iraqi children lying in
hospitals with blown off faces and limbs paid for by our tax dollars.
They're dying "for our sake" too, but I guess Mel isn't interested making a
movie about them. It wouldn't PAY as well...

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:25 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Gibson's Passion
>
>
> This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
> think unnecessarily so.
>
> Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
> biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
> wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
> Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
> IIRC).
>
> It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
> quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
> characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
> best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
> Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).
>
> Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
> particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
> a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
> contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
> these accounts is shocking.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Thursday 18 March 2004 04:07 pm, Dante Rosati wrote:
> what gets me is the people comming out of the theatres saying "oooh, to
> think he suffered like that for us!" As if some dude getting nailed to a
> tree 2000 years ago is more relevant than the Iraqi children lying in
> hospitals with blown off faces and limbs paid for by our tax dollars.
> They're dying "for our sake" too, but I guess Mel isn't interested making a
> movie about them. It wouldn't PAY as well...
>
> Dante

Absolutely right!

-A.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:25 PM
> > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [metatuning] Gibson's Passion
> >
> >
> > This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
> > think unnecessarily so.
> >
> > Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
> > biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
> > wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
> > Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
> > IIRC).
> >
> > It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
> > quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
> > characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
> > best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
> > Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).
> >
> > Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
> > particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
> > a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
> > contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
> > these accounts is shocking.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

on 3/18/04 9:16 AM, Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...> wrote:

> On Thursday 18 March 2004 01:39 am, Kurt Bigler wrote:
>>
>> Just because you are against religion doesn't mean you have to be an
>> athiest! ;)
>
> You're right, but in my case, I am both against religion and an atheist ;)
>
>> In any case, to me the word athiest has a literal meaning which I'm
>> *guessing* is what you are using.
>
> Atheist means 'disbelief in God'. That's how I'm using it.

Yes, that is actually what I was guessing to be most likely, as I said. And
that's why I confessed the connotation it had for me, after having already
tentatively dismissed its applicability to you. I guess I just wasn't clear
enough - sorry.

>> But for me it also has a connotation of
>> a refusal to acknowledge the possibility of any organizing principle beyond
>> the individual, which I think is a mistake, if not one of the primary
>> mistakes people in this time in history are involved in.
>
> Where do you jump to the conclusion that I deny any organizing principle
> beyond the individual?

I didn't jump to that conclusion. That's why I exposed my thinking a
little, hoping that it would help you understand that.

> Does everything that is organizational automagically
> become God-fodder?

Intersting question. Certainly I would hope not with god having the meaning
it has for you.

My definition of god is perhaps too loosey-goosey. Many words are
metaphoric and I use them as such. I am aware that a lot of people claim to
believe in god and do organized religious things in relation to that, all of
which is pretty meaningless, or even harmful as you have said. I'm quiet
aware of that problem and in fact it really bothers me, especially when
circumstances put me into direct context with this bullshit. On the other
hand there are plenty of well-meaning people who due to their own
flexibility have found their own meaninging for a good deal of what the
empty religion around them merely talks abut. I think these people are
perhaps overly trusting and nieve, and not active enough in giving their own
personal feedback into the religious situation in which they find themselves
involved.

Nonetheless I wish to acknowledge that these people exist and are part of
organized religion. I do not mean to de-emphasize the problems in this
acknowledgement.

But it is for this sort of reason that it makes sense to me to use the word
"god" to refer to a larger organizing principle. My understanding is that
*many* people do similarly, though perhaps these people form the great
minority in any actual count. Some of these people even go to church
sometimes, and even find that a personally meaningful thing to do, in spite
of being aware of the problems that surround the institution.

>> I figured for
>> some reason no one would say they are an athiest unless they really mean to
>> deny all that as well.
>
> Well, as you admit, YOU added this extra meaning, not I.

Absolutely.

Its just that I rarely run into people who claim to be athiest, and so I
hardly know what to do with it. You just got my raw direct response.

>> And "all that" is something that I sometimes call
>> "god" although I think of this as a metaphor. But I have no problem with
>> the metaphor nor the fairly free use of it as long as I believe it is
>> working as a "signpost" within a dialog. That's what words are for, after
>> all. Thus, I am in this sense not an athiest, because I do not deny the
>> metaphor, nor do I claim that the metaphor has no actual referent. But I
>> do not claim to know the nature of that referent.
>>
>> Meanwhile I am very tolerant of religion if I believe people came upon it
>> innocently and with no intention to do damage. ;)
>
> I think coming upon something innocently can still be very damaging. Happening
> to be born a Muslim in a Fundamentalist Afghan Taliban is innocent enough. So
> you would forgive the average Al-Qaeda terrorist for their actions? By this
> logic, no one is responsible for their innocent assumptions !

No. But it is much better to be aware of the points of view that are
trained in in this way, to be *clearly* aware of them and to understand that
in their situation any one of us *might* make the same mistake. Everyone is
responsible.

>> But I won't tolerate
>> good intentions quietly either if I see damage being done. And in fact I
>> see a lot of damage being done, some of it quite subtle. So I have a lot
>> to say to the religious.
>
> These people's good intentions include things like removing references from
> evolution from science textbooks, and putting Bible verses up in place of
> geological explanations at the Grand Canyon.

What do you mean by "these people". There are plenty who might say they
believe in god who do not meet this description. Admittedly there appear to
be plenty who *do*. My current plan is to work on the smaller offenders.
It is sort of on the level of pointing out to people things they are doing
that are wasteful or damaging in some small way, which they do not have to
do. Start with the people who are *more* like me, is my strategy, and let
that ripple as it ripples. With such people might it be pertinent to have a
conversation about "god"? This remains an open question, indeed a question
with some potentially disturbing consequences to me because I do not want to
buy into someone else's meaning for "god" implicitly. And yet I want to
have the skill to enter such a dialog.

> And voting for
> environment-destroying, corporate-greed club, Christian-right-wing Bush
> administrations. Unless you believe scientific truth is relative, these kind
> of actions are utterly unforgivable and simply fucked up beyond
> comprehension, not to mention based on the lowest common denominator of human
> behavior: fear and pride.
>
>> But I know better than to just polarize myself
>> stupidly against them. So I go back to my tolerance and hope to have a
>> good balance whenever the opportunity for dialog comes up.
>
> If you are implying that I'm somehow 'polarizing stupidly', then you are
> intitled to you opinion, which I will politely ignore.

I would hardly have implied that since I didn't even know enough abuot you
to claim that, or in fact, even to have the thought of that possibility. I
was explaining my own choices and my own meanings, and you were a complete
unknown to me and I was looking forward to a dialog. But I already said too
much without knowing your meanings.

> Other than that, I feel no reason to justify my belief in cosmic truth and
> honesty above false mythology to anyone,

Well at least we are in agreement here. I'm sorry for damage done in the
failed communication.

> either the religious or the
> apologists to the religious.

> It's a long way from 'cosmic organizing principle' to 'Thou shalt worship the
> God of Abraham and Jacob', or 'You will burn in a lake of fire if you do not
> accept the blood of Christ'.

Nonetheless, the word "god" unfortunately spans all these possibilities.
But I can see good reasons for avoiding the word--you have made a bit of a
dent there.

I share your distaste for what goes on "in the name of god". At this point
I will spare you the details of my particular issues with "religion".

I may not call myself an athiest, but I do strive to be as unreligious as
possibles. Nonetheless my habits of thought sometimes have dynamics that
resemble dynamics of religious belief, and these habits either get weeded
out or continue to plague me. As I see it: To identify with any belief is
a trap. Maybe belief is something we have as a practical aid to dealing
with life. Perhaps we do not need beliefs at all, if there were a more
flexible way of dealing with the situations in which beliefs currently
appear to serve us. Perhaps they are helpful. In any case beliefs do not
need to be rigid. They stand until replaced by another belief (or a
refinement of the previously "held" belief), and perhaps they can stand
flexibly, as an invitation to dialog. That is what I would wish for.

-Kurt

>
> -Aaron.
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.dividebypi.com
>
> OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
> for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

i finally saw The Passion, and was far less impressed
than i had expected to be. of course i and probably
close to 100% of the rest of the audience already knew
the plot, so there's not much Gibson could have done
for suspense. but dramatically i thought the film was
very lacking, and i really didn't like the way earlier
parts of Jesus's life were shown only as very short
flashback vignettes ... a lot more time could have been
spent on these IMO, and i think i would have liked it
better if they weren't flashbacks. my 2 cents.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> This is probably the bloodiest film I've seen, and I
> think unnecessarily so.
>
> Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
> biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
> wife bearing gifts to Mary, the temple exploding upon
> Jesus' death (only the curtain tears in the gospels,
> IIRC).
>
> It seems natural to bring this story to film, and also
> quite difficult. Nevertheless, Gibson's now
> characteristic, overbearing slo-mo is gratuitous at
> best. And this coming from me, who actually liked
> Braveheart and The Patriot (I'm embarrassed to say).
>
> Though as an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the
> particular appeal of this story, a few weeks ago I saw
> a performance of Bach's St. John Passion, and the
> contrast between the emotional and artistic value of
> these accounts is shocking.
>
> -Carl

> i finally saw The Passion, and was far less impressed
> than i had expected to be. of course i and probably
> close to 100% of the rest of the audience already knew
> the plot, so there's not much Gibson could have done
> for suspense. but dramatically i thought the film was
> very lacking, and i really didn't like the way earlier
> parts of Jesus's life were shown only as very short
> flashback vignettes ... a lot more time could have been
> spent on these IMO, and i think i would have liked it
> better if they weren't flashbacks. my 2 cents.

I agree about the flashbacks. Actually, I would have
left them out completely, since they're not part of
the Passion.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> i finally saw The Passion, and was far less impressed
> than i had expected to be.

I just saw it with three others, and none of us were impressed. Too
Hollywood-fakey, and the claim Ebert made that it followed the gospels
closely turned out to be false. Of course that did lead to fine
scenes, such as where they toss Jesus off a bridge and he comes nose
to nose with Judas, or where Satan and Satan Jr. (the Antichrist?)
show up to gawk when he is flogged.

> > i finally saw The Passion, and was far less impressed
> > than i had expected to be.
>
> I just saw it with three others, and none of us were impressed.
> Too Hollywood-fakey, and the claim Ebert made that it followed
> the gospels closely turned out to be false. Of course that did
> lead to fine scenes, such as where they toss Jesus off a bridge
> and he comes nose to nose with Judas, or where Satan and
> Satan Jr. (the Antichrist?) show up to gawk when he is flogged.

I wrote...

> Much of the supposed anti-semitism is built into the
> biblical account, but there are exceptions... Pilate's
> wife bearing gifts to Mary,

...still one of the more egregious fabrications. Also,
Satan does not tempt Jesus in Gethsemane.

> the temple exploding upon Jesus' death (only the curtain
> tears in the gospels, IIRC).

Correction: In Matthew alone there is an earthquake, and
even resurrections.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> ...still one of the more egregious fabrications. Also,
> Satan does not tempt Jesus in Gethsemane.

I knew we were in trouble when that happened. I was sitting there,
wondering how Gibson was going to treat the scene where the angel
shows up, and instead the Gibster had Satan show up. Bummer.

My nephew tells me the Latin was badly pronounced; I'd guess the same
is true of the Aramaic, not that it makes much difference. Still, the
slow, careful way of speaking was reminiscent of Bela Lugosi in Dracula.

> My nephew tells me the Latin was badly pronounced;

I heard (not necc. reliable) that some scholars were
brought in to create the Latin speech as it would have
been spoken then, according to the latest ideas on the
matter, which is of course ultimately guesswork.
Anyway, the implication was that whatever was done was
done intentionally.

-Carl

Greek was the lingua franca at the time and would have been used by the
Romans to communicate with the Palestinians. And certainly Jesus would NOT
have spoken Latin, as he does in the flick when speaking to Pilate.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:50 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Gibson's Passion
>
>
> > My nephew tells me the Latin was badly pronounced;
>
> I heard (not necc. reliable) that some scholars were
> brought in to create the Latin speech as it would have
> been spoken then, according to the latest ideas on the
> matter, which is of course ultimately guesswork.
> Anyway, the implication was that whatever was done was
> done intentionally.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

>And certainly Jesus would NOT have spoken Latin, as he does
>in the flick when speaking to Pilate.

Dude, it's Jesus. He can speak in whatever language he
wants! :)

-Carl