Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Gibson's Portrayal of Christ Mostly Accurate

Aired February 25, 2004 - 11:36   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, ANCHOR: Scholars are debating the accuracy of "The Passion." Our Beth Nissen takes a look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Should viewers of "The Passion of the Christ" take Mel Gibson's vision as gospel? The work of scores of biblical scholars and historians was in the "Newsweek" magazine cover story, "Who Really Killed Jesus?" by managing editor Jon Meacham, himself a student of biblical history.

He's seen the movie twice.

JON MEACHAM, "NEWSWEEK" MANAGING EDITOR: I think the basic means of crucifixion in Gibson's movie is essentially right. This was a terrible way to die.

NISSEN: Only a few of the film's horribly graphic details are in dispute. Gibson shows nails being driven into Christ's palms, which conflicts with archaeological findings.

MEACHAM: Most evidence suggests that the nail would go through the wrist, which would obviously physically keep you on the cross.

NISSEN: Otherwise, Gibson's bloody depiction of Christ's suffering on the cross is in accordance with historical versions on this commonly used form of Roman capital punishment.

MEACHAM: Death by crucifixion was wretched, horrible, violent. It's the reason we have the word excruciating.

NISSEN: The film also accurately portrays the public nature of this form of execution for those found guilty of sedition in Roman occupied Palestine.

MEACHAM: The point of the cross was that it was a public warning to others. You were on that hill. You were on those pieces of wood, and the message was, if you don't fall in line, this will happen to you.

NISSEN: Gibson's film diverges more from historical, and even some biblical sources, in his depiction of how Jesus was sentenced to death and by whom.

MEACHAM: The essential historical problem is Pilate. That's where he went sort of off the rails, by making Pilate such a good guy. NISSEN: The film depicts Pontius Pilate as a Roman leader concerned with justice, reluctant to sentence Jesus to death, but persuaded to do so by the Jewish mob and the temple high priest. A portrayal that doesn't square with historical records of Pilate's tyrannical rule.

MEACHAM: Once historian describes Pontius Pilate as stubborn, cruel, and of inflexible position. Quite the opposite of the just Roman ruler.

NISSEN: Gibson chose to use the Bible as his key source, which for historians is problematic.

MEACHAM: The gospel accounts may contain important spiritual truths, important theological truths, but they are not necessarily documents in which the chronology of events, the nature of events in time, can be taken as literally true.

NISSEN: And biblical scholars, even Catholic leaders, fault Gibson for how he's used the gospels, making a composite of the New Testament for varying accounts of the crucifixion.

Gibson, for example, ignores a passage from the book of John in which it is the chief priests and temple officers who call for Jesus' crucifixion, and instead blends accounts from the other three books that stressed the role of the crowd.

MEACHAM: If you take the "let his blood be upon us and upon our children" line from Matthew and put it in the larger crowd scene before Pilate, then you get a sense that the Jewish mob made that cry, as opposed to a certain element of the Jewish society at that time.

You could come away from this movie believing that the Jews killed Jesus. That's not what happened.

NISSEN: What did happen? Who did kill Jesus?

MEACHAM: As a matter of history, Pontius Pilate and the Roman Empire killed Jesus. It was Pontius Pilate saying, "If you think you're the king of the Jews, this is what happens to you. Because there's only one king of the Jews, and that's Caesar."

NISSEN: Historians and scholars know there will be many who take this film on faith.

MEACHAM: People will go to see this never-ending story, this eternally, perennially fascinating story that is only going to stop being told when the kingdom of God comes.

NISSEN: And will surely be discussed as to its truths, its details, until then.

Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.

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 25, 2004 - 11:36   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, ANCHOR: Scholars are debating the accuracy of "The Passion." Our Beth Nissen takes a look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Should viewers of "The Passion of the Christ" take Mel Gibson's vision as gospel? The work of scores of biblical scholars and historians was in the "Newsweek" magazine cover story, "Who Really Killed Jesus?" by managing editor Jon Meacham, himself a student of biblical history.

He's seen the movie twice.

JON MEACHAM, "NEWSWEEK" MANAGING EDITOR: I think the basic means of crucifixion in Gibson's movie is essentially right. This was a terrible way to die.

NISSEN: Only a few of the film's horribly graphic details are in dispute. Gibson shows nails being driven into Christ's palms, which conflicts with archaeological findings.

MEACHAM: Most evidence suggests that the nail would go through the wrist, which would obviously physically keep you on the cross.

NISSEN: Otherwise, Gibson's bloody depiction of Christ's suffering on the cross is in accordance with historical versions on this commonly used form of Roman capital punishment.

MEACHAM: Death by crucifixion was wretched, horrible, violent. It's the reason we have the word excruciating.

NISSEN: The film also accurately portrays the public nature of this form of execution for those found guilty of sedition in Roman occupied Palestine.

MEACHAM: The point of the cross was that it was a public warning to others. You were on that hill. You were on those pieces of wood, and the message was, if you don't fall in line, this will happen to you.

NISSEN: Gibson's film diverges more from historical, and even some biblical sources, in his depiction of how Jesus was sentenced to death and by whom.

MEACHAM: The essential historical problem is Pilate. That's where he went sort of off the rails, by making Pilate such a good guy. NISSEN: The film depicts Pontius Pilate as a Roman leader concerned with justice, reluctant to sentence Jesus to death, but persuaded to do so by the Jewish mob and the temple high priest. A portrayal that doesn't square with historical records of Pilate's tyrannical rule.

MEACHAM: Once historian describes Pontius Pilate as stubborn, cruel, and of inflexible position. Quite the opposite of the just Roman ruler.

NISSEN: Gibson chose to use the Bible as his key source, which for historians is problematic.

MEACHAM: The gospel accounts may contain important spiritual truths, important theological truths, but they are not necessarily documents in which the chronology of events, the nature of events in time, can be taken as literally true.

NISSEN: And biblical scholars, even Catholic leaders, fault Gibson for how he's used the gospels, making a composite of the New Testament for varying accounts of the crucifixion.

Gibson, for example, ignores a passage from the book of John in which it is the chief priests and temple officers who call for Jesus' crucifixion, and instead blends accounts from the other three books that stressed the role of the crowd.

MEACHAM: If you take the "let his blood be upon us and upon our children" line from Matthew and put it in the larger crowd scene before Pilate, then you get a sense that the Jewish mob made that cry, as opposed to a certain element of the Jewish society at that time.

You could come away from this movie believing that the Jews killed Jesus. That's not what happened.

NISSEN: What did happen? Who did kill Jesus?

MEACHAM: As a matter of history, Pontius Pilate and the Roman Empire killed Jesus. It was Pontius Pilate saying, "If you think you're the king of the Jews, this is what happens to you. Because there's only one king of the Jews, and that's Caesar."

NISSEN: Historians and scholars know there will be many who take this film on faith.

MEACHAM: People will go to see this never-ending story, this eternally, perennially fascinating story that is only going to stop being told when the kingdom of God comes.

NISSEN: And will surely be discussed as to its truths, its details, until then.

Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.

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