Why BBC's Historical Revisionism "The Passion" is Worth Criticizing

Controversy has surrounded The Passion, a BBC mini series brought about with the intent to give you a new look on the crucifixion. The British have already scored remarkably high with their attempts at putting a face to Christ, with their world popular Jesus of Nazareth, considered by many to be the epitome of quality Jesus films that not only does justice to the stories, but adds to them such an air of believable historicity that they should be on any person's "much watch list", even if you are in the growing movement of Christian bashers.

Many Christians have taken something of an apathetic approach to the film - there are bigger battles to fight, and unfortunately to many of them, those take the shape of Dumbledore's preference to wizards over witches and whether or not the scholastically befuddled ramblings of Dan Brown constitute an attack on a Church that spends just as much time attacking its own scripture for the sake of Papal vanity. However, that is not to say everyone has been silent about The Passion, and truth be told, it is the historical purist who should be outraged, far more than the Christian.

Therefore it is from the avenue of an ardent Roman history enthusiast that the notion that Jesus was crucified in a fetal position - apparently mimicking the Jehova's Witness depiction of Christ nailed to what they call "death sticks", whereby a single pole is stood erect, and Jesus's hands are nailed above his head. Since I have not personally seen the series, I cannot remark overtly on the exact method they use, despite my constant attempts to find a copy of the film, or at the very least pictures, I can only go by the testimony provided by the BBC's official website.

Ultimately, it has been announced that their primary reason for showing this "new way" that Jesus died was the worst that they could come up with: "The makers wanted something that wasn't the typical image that would surprise the viewers. This is not an attempt to be iconoclastic, but to get people to look again at the events surrounding his death."

A worse excuse for changing history cannot be given. History is what it is, and it does not exist so that we can re-invent it in new and imaginative ways in order to invoke any kind of "thought" from our audience. This is an important vow we take on when we are entrusted by our audiences to be true to history, because for a brief 60, 120, or 320 minutes, we become the teachers from a pulpit of truth, and the audience puts their trust that we are going to deliver them a quality, accurate, and inspirational piece based on the research we claim we did.

Therefore, it becomes increasingly disturbing when we chastise our audiences for speaking out against historical inaccuracies, as has been the case here. I don't personally feel that theological "offenses" are a debate worthy of controversy, as has been the case with outcries against media such as Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code, but when something is passed as historical fact in the face of revisionism, then it throws itself under a glass of scrutiny that isn't normally provided for typical media.

In addition to the claims that Christ was presumably crucified with his arms stretched above his head rather than side to side, even more egregious claims made by The Passion include an attempted sympathetic portrayal of Caiaphas, Pilate, and Judas - of those three, the first being the most lamentable and least worthy of forgiveness for the part he played.

The stories presented by the BBC's production crew are rather easily debunked, and therefore should be immediately. The argument that we need to "revise" history for the sake of audiences all but demands some historical clarification, and not the general scholastic apathy which has thus far been extolled.

The Crucifixion

The only real point that the BBC is capable of making is that the Bible doesn't go into great detail about the actual technical perspective about the event. This is somewhat of an overall important detail, however, as many people misunderstand the original intent of the Gospels, believing them to be a universal message written to you or I, whereas the actual context is fascinating. Matthew, for example, was written by an ex-tax collector - a job that was particularly despised by the people of Judea, especially when it is held by a Jew himself. It was written for the Jews of the conquered provinces, and is therefore written in language that will appeal to them.

In the book of Mark, John Mark is hoping to write to Roman Christians. This all understood, we should remember that these pieces are written in the context of their time periods. With crucifixion being a not all too uncommon event in the daily lives of Romans and Jews, it is usually a waste of ink to go "He was crucified, which meant that his arms were outstretched, they rammed nails into them, they put a piece of wood about two feet by one foot under him, they used the following type of hemp rope..." Much like journalists and eyewitnesses of today, they wrote expediently and to get the point across, we do not detail in heavy length the process of a lethal injection or electrocution to a people widely aware of what it is. After all, the key to writing is to Keep It Simple Stupid.

That being said, an absence of details in the original Gospel is not a free license to begin making details up as you go, as the BBC has done. Armed with this lack of detail however, they justify this by pointing to the remains of a Jewish man named Jehohanan. Although they admit they have no real way of knowing how he was crucified, the absence of palm damage and a strange curved nail in his heel are their explanation for the fact that he died in a "fetal" position.

Well, we won't hold the fact that they've fundamentally admitted they don't really know how Jehohanan died against them, but we will use contemporary sources as a sign that they, well, don't use contemporary sources.

One of the primary claims is that Jehohanan's death, in AD 7, is proof that this was the common way Jews were executed in Roman occupied Judea. But in a rather Noam Chomsky style of observation, they are isolating points of history and starting where they want to, and ignoring everything before, or after that. By choosing Jehohanan's death and then leaping right to the mid-crucifixion of Christ, we are omitting several key details, not the least of which being eyewitness accounts by Jews, that help annihilate any argument posed by the BBC.

First and foremost, any enthusiast of Roman history knows that there was no constant when it came to crucifixion outside of the status symbol that Rome had intended it to be and the horrible horrible death that ensued. The BBC's entire case crumbles when it bases itself on the idea that there was any form of uniformity in how prisoners were crucified. They were executed based almost solely on expedience - in the case of the Appian Way, when Crassus had hundreds of thousands of people crucified from Capua to Rome, it had gotten to the point where they simply ran out of nails, and began tying people to posts to let them starve.

There were literally hundreds of variables that could contribute the end result of a crucifixion, ranging from resources available at the time to who exactly is in charge of the execution itself. Another key factor is who the presiding judiciary official is in the case, as would be the task of the procurator, or in Jesus's case, Pontius Pilate.

In the case of Jehohanan however, Pontius Pilate was not the presiding procurator or governor, and therefore ascribing practices of whoever was in charge in AD 7 to Pilate, who didn't rule for another 19 years, is academically lazy. This is to say nothing of the fact that contemporary sources do not say that the "fetal position" is the "most common form of execution", as Josephus explains that there were plenty of options available that the Romans used with great frequency. From Pilate onward, crosses, X shaped crosses, and death sticks all entered into their over all game plan based on the issue that arose.

Of course, this contemporary historian also goes on to explain that there were many cases where the accused had a small seat hoisted underneath them, and their genitals were nailed to that piece of wood as well. In essence, using the BBC's logic, because this was an option used by rulers at the time, we can assume that Jesus asked Thomas to feel the holes in his hands and scrotum? I think not.

The very history of crucifixion itself lends to the notion that the Romans best associated crosses with the execution, as it initially found itself prevalent in trees outside of the city itself. Tied to these "unfortunate trees" as they were called, the previously scourged victim was simply left to die in a practice that was picked up by the Carthaginians, which in turn may have been influenced by the Greeks, as much of Poeni culture was.

Further, the most common form of crucifixion with hands suspended over the head involved a single nail, however the book of John state (and even the BBC agrees, go figure) agree that Thomas made a distinct reference to nails in his hands. According to John 20:25, Thomas says, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Admittedly I have not seen The Passion, so maybe they diverge from the death stick theory and have his hands nailed separately, once more blasting in the face of history, but I don't rightly see how this is possible.

In conclusion, there really isn't any way that we can come to the idea that Jesus was crucified in any way but that which was most common, based on the trees of the arbor infelix, which was that his hands were outstretched to either side, nailed separately.

Caiaphas

There is much to be said that Pontius Pilate was a figure who was dealt a raw deal by history. However the notion that Caiaphas is one that deserves any form of emotional amnesty is something that is not really up for debate. True, his figure is one far more complex than many Passion Plays will allow, but the simple fact is that Caiaphas was a figure that represents villainy and greed - and hoping to find an alternative to this is like trying to find a way to convince yourself that Palpatine was just misunderstood in his own depravity.

Caiaphas was in a unique position, and only by actually understanding the history surrounding him, Rome, and the job he inhabited can you get a full scope of both the precariousness of his position and the depths that he'll sink to to maintain it. As a brief recap however, the position of High Priest was the most renown in Judea, it could be described as being similar to the Pope, only they acknowledged their own fallibility, feeling that they, based on their heritage, were the one walkie-talkie between man and God.

In essence, he was the very man that Jesus came to do away with. The idea that you could receive absolution without the intervention of the High Priest was a radical new idea, and fundamentally shook up the power of the Temple. The belief of the High Priest was centered around the notion that only he was able to communicate with God, and over an annual sacrifice he would go behind the curtain into the Holy of Holies, whereby he would implore the Lord for the cleansing of human sin.

Jesus preached several radical ideas, which were fundamentally demonstrated in the tearing of the curtain into the Holy of Holies, that would remove the High Priest and the entire Sanhedrin from any form of spiritual authority whatsoever. God was opened to the masses, they no longer needed the Temple or the Priest. Therefore, on a simple political level, Caiaphas needed to remove Jesus.

This position was of such incredible importance, that once elected as High Priest, you receive the position for life. Regardless of whatever transgressions occur, you've gotten the position, you are never losing it. Rome, the secular pragmatists that they were, decided that Caiaphas's father-in-law, Annas, overstepped his legal authority when he carried out an execution that ran in stark contrast to Roman law. Therefore, deciding that Roman law was above Jewish law, they simply removed him, and placed in Caiaphas as the first Roman appointee leader of the Sanhedrin - what was worse, the previous High Priest had to witness this secular humiliation.

All eyes were therefore primarily on Annas, the real power behind the Sanhedrin. Although Caiaphas's word was law, politics stated that he was very careful about Annas's own wishes.

Then there was a far more practical, more classic reason for his hatred of Jesus too: there was no better way to make money than the downright exploitative practices of the Temple in the form of money changing. It was all but required for any visitor to the temple to leave an offering or a donation. This practice essentially continues to this day with collection plates in Churches. However, there was a slight difference in this case, as there was only one standard of money allowed in the Temple, however Judea was a land of many currencies. Therefore, hoping to capitalize on this, the Sanhedrin established a money changing service, whereby you, at extremely high interest rates, you could transform your foreign money into local money.

This level of exploitation made the Temple incredibly rich - and therefore, Christ's condemnation and attacks on the money changing was once more a direct attack on the High Priest's income.

It was these factors that led to Caiaphas and Annas's decision to sell out justice for the sake of maintaining their corrupt institutions. There is more to be said in a future article, but it should not be understated that these two, who are expected to be students of the law, knowingly violated perhaps every single aspect of the Jewish legal code in the hopes of seeing Jesus executed.

The BBC criticizes the notion that he had a "kangaroo court" set up for a quick conviction of Jesus, but unfortunately the Gospel in no uncertain terms indicates that this is the inerrant truth. The violations are many, not the least of which being the very definition of a "kangaroo court" by not allowing the full judicial process to come and review the case; most of the Sanhedrin was still asleep as Caiaphas and Annas carried out their "review". Key witnesses were barred from testimony, Jesus was forced to testify against himself - all of this was forbidden by Mosaic Law.

And yet...we need to pity this man?