Jesus's Cross was manufactured at the temple...? either i missed it or i must have been asleep that time,... didn't catch it...
Well, i wasn't refering to the other details of the movie as much as i was on what Jesus would have endured. I was actually more leaning towards the meaning that the movie was accurate in the sense that the depiction of what Jesus went through was more or less historically accurate, unlike the 1970s Jesus film,....
In first century Palestine, most Romans would have spoken not Latin but Greek
Actually it is accurate. The film was in Arabic and Latin. The Jewish characters in the movie would have spoken Aramic, their language at the time, the Romans would have spoken "street latin" and the intellectuals of the day would have spoken Greek. Since the intellectuals were uninvolved in the story, there was no need for Greek. Therefore the movie was accurate.
Off the top of my head i could list some mistakes and inaccuracies:
1. When the romans crucified someone, it was through their wrists, not their hands, if they were nailed through the hands, when the cross was erected, the person would have just slipped off, the hands are simply not strong enough. It is a common assumption that the nails went through the hands because the bible have said 'hands' but the actual meaning of 'hands' in the original Greek Biblical text would include the fingers, palm, wrists and forearms. The person on the cross would have died of suffiocation rather than pain.
2. It was customary to flog someone 39 lashes (sometimes more, depending on the flogger's mood), before they were nailed to the cross. Jesus had probably endure more in the movie, also, the wooden cane like things would have never been used. The other two criminals beside Jesus in the movie was never flogged, nor did it look like they were actually crucified.
and Chrisrkline, i wasn't refering to people who disliked
the violence, but people who thought it was unneccesary
. Personally, i disliked it, but i would rather have it on full violence if it meant that it was historically accurate, than to have a watered down version of the truth.
drummer7, well said. or as shakespeare would put it, well saideth.
Dan, i'm going to be frank here, and please don't take this the wrong way, and i think that what you said was completely valid as an opinion. Just that perhaps you could look deeper into the film and look beyond the suffering into the meaning of it all... again, no hostility/patronizing/assholian behavior intended here...