Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

'Passion': Historically Accurate?

Aired February 11, 2004 - 10:49   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Mel Gibson's "Passion," the controversial new film about the crucifixion of Christ, opens on Ash Wednesday in two weeks. Filmgoers may believe they are seeing a historically accurate portrayal of events 2,000 years ago, but that might not be exactly true, as "Archaeology" magazine explains in a new article. Sandra Scham is a contributing editor with the magazine, and she comes to us this morning from our Washington studio, to explain what scholars do and do not know about the Crucifixion.
Good morning. Thanks for being here with us.

SANDRA SCHAM, "ARCHAEOLOGY" MAGAZINE: Thank you. Good to be here.

KAGAN: We're taking this discussion outside of the whole controversy about the movie, whether it's anti-Semitic, whether it's a great religious and spiritual movement. This is simply about, can you make a movie and say that this is history and this is the facts, as you believe them, correct?

SCHAM: Well, it's very difficult for this time period and for these events. Remember, you're talking about events relating to a person of the masses, if you will, who would not necessarily show up in historical records of the time, certainly not in Roman records.

And as far as the presence of sites relating to "The Passion" that still exist in Jerusalem, there are very few, partly because many have been built over, partly because there's difficulty in identifying things absolutely the first century A.D., as opposed to the second century. A number of sites the Christian tourists are shown in Jerusalem are not necessarily related to the life and ministry of Jesus. Simply, they may be at the right time period, they may not, as the case may be.

KAGAN: I'm sorry, so let me just ask you this -- so what exactly do scholars know about that time and about that period?

SCHAM: Well, we do have a lot of historical records, specifically Josephesis (ph) is considered to be a very good source for the period.

KAGAN: What is that?

SCHAM: Josephesis is an historian who wrote voluminous volumes about this period in Roman history. But of course Josephesis is not considered to be an absolutely accurate source. Archaeologically, we really just don't have any monumental buildings of this period from Jerusalem. There are a lot of reconstructions and lot of speculation, and certainly some remains, but we can really say very little about what Jerusalem looked like during this period of time. We don't have much archaeological evidence. And certainly, there's almost nothing relating to the life of Jesus. And most of the Christian sites, of course, were identified during the later Byzantine period, around 300 A.D.

KAGAN: What about the language? Much has been made that a lot of the language is the language of Aramaic (ph). Is that the correct interpretation of what they would have been speaking at that time?

SCHAM: Well, yes, they would have been speaking Aramaic. Scholars of the period have pointed out that the use of Latin by the Romans in the movie may be incorrect because they probably would have spoken Greek in all of their public appearances. But certainly Aramaic would have been the language of the time. As far as how Aramaic is pronounced, though, nobody can say. I understand that the person who worked on the dialogue did do a great deal of reconstruction work to make sure it sounded authentic.

KAGAN: Sandra Scham, thank you for giving us an archaeological look at that time period. A lot of people will be talking about this movie as we come up to the debut in two weeks. I appreciate your time.

SCHAM: Certainly.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired February 11, 2004 - 10:49   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Mel Gibson's "Passion," the controversial new film about the crucifixion of Christ, opens on Ash Wednesday in two weeks. Filmgoers may believe they are seeing a historically accurate portrayal of events 2,000 years ago, but that might not be exactly true, as "Archaeology" magazine explains in a new article. Sandra Scham is a contributing editor with the magazine, and she comes to us this morning from our Washington studio, to explain what scholars do and do not know about the Crucifixion.
Good morning. Thanks for being here with us.

SANDRA SCHAM, "ARCHAEOLOGY" MAGAZINE: Thank you. Good to be here.

KAGAN: We're taking this discussion outside of the whole controversy about the movie, whether it's anti-Semitic, whether it's a great religious and spiritual movement. This is simply about, can you make a movie and say that this is history and this is the facts, as you believe them, correct?

SCHAM: Well, it's very difficult for this time period and for these events. Remember, you're talking about events relating to a person of the masses, if you will, who would not necessarily show up in historical records of the time, certainly not in Roman records.

And as far as the presence of sites relating to "The Passion" that still exist in Jerusalem, there are very few, partly because many have been built over, partly because there's difficulty in identifying things absolutely the first century A.D., as opposed to the second century. A number of sites the Christian tourists are shown in Jerusalem are not necessarily related to the life and ministry of Jesus. Simply, they may be at the right time period, they may not, as the case may be.

KAGAN: I'm sorry, so let me just ask you this -- so what exactly do scholars know about that time and about that period?

SCHAM: Well, we do have a lot of historical records, specifically Josephesis (ph) is considered to be a very good source for the period.

KAGAN: What is that?

SCHAM: Josephesis is an historian who wrote voluminous volumes about this period in Roman history. But of course Josephesis is not considered to be an absolutely accurate source. Archaeologically, we really just don't have any monumental buildings of this period from Jerusalem. There are a lot of reconstructions and lot of speculation, and certainly some remains, but we can really say very little about what Jerusalem looked like during this period of time. We don't have much archaeological evidence. And certainly, there's almost nothing relating to the life of Jesus. And most of the Christian sites, of course, were identified during the later Byzantine period, around 300 A.D.

KAGAN: What about the language? Much has been made that a lot of the language is the language of Aramaic (ph). Is that the correct interpretation of what they would have been speaking at that time?

SCHAM: Well, yes, they would have been speaking Aramaic. Scholars of the period have pointed out that the use of Latin by the Romans in the movie may be incorrect because they probably would have spoken Greek in all of their public appearances. But certainly Aramaic would have been the language of the time. As far as how Aramaic is pronounced, though, nobody can say. I understand that the person who worked on the dialogue did do a great deal of reconstruction work to make sure it sounded authentic.

KAGAN: Sandra Scham, thank you for giving us an archaeological look at that time period. A lot of people will be talking about this movie as we come up to the debut in two weeks. I appreciate your time.

SCHAM: Certainly.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com