MovieChat Forums > Ben-Hur (2016) Discussion > Historical Inaccuracies and Anachronisms

Historical Inaccuracies and Anachronisms

posted 8 years ago by Phagocyte
76 replies | jump to latest

I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned on these boards already. Surely there are intelligent people out there who were irritated by this throughout the movie and can enlighten us by identifying more examples.

My own tentative suggestions:

Men didn't wear jeans in Ancient Judea.

Jewish women didn't wear pants and ride horses astride.

It is unlikely Judah Ben-Hur would exclaim "My God!" with such a casual air.

Jesus did not permanently reside in Jerusalem.

Lock and key mechanisms were not so sophisticated.

The concept of 'progressivism' did not come about until the European Enlightenment (19th Century).

[–] rcostabile 8 years ago

Riders with stirrups, the egyptian charioter using wardrobe and make up proper of the New Kingdom, a thousand years out of style.

And many other stupid things, Mesala wearing full armour on a chariot race, women never were crucified, the zealot uprising was 40 years later, in the book the romans won the naval battle, no jew would ever adopt a non jew child, etc, etc.

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

Thanks for mentioning that women were NOT crucified. Why waste a valuable slave? "Spartacus" got that right (the film, not the series, which got it wrong). Men to be crucified, women and children to auction.

I don't know which is worse - not doing your homework historically or not even CARING.

[–] KatharineFanatic 8 years ago

women never were crucified

Downey & Burnett made this glaring error in their series, A.D. as well. Where is their erroneous information coming from, or do they simply do it to make the Romans seem even WORSE than they were?

[–] kiowhatta 8 years ago

What annoys me along with these pathological error's, is the disturbing resurgence of Judeo-Christian themed blockbuster's.
Morality is common sense and simple rationalisation - in this day and age money could be better spent on films minus the gushy-saccharine-syrupy sentiment.
Surely that's anachronistic?

[–] patsw 8 years ago

"Morality" to a Roman was to conquer the world for Rome's glory. "Morality" to a Jewish zealot was to rebel against Roman authority. "Morality" for a follower of Jesus was to love one's neighbor. "Morality" is not common sense.

It's a good thing to see movies that can put this on display.

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

Your idea of Roman morality is the result of Hollywood. If you read their letters to each other, you will get a far more complex idea. It was not all about conquest. In fact, each conquest was usually justified as self-defense, which they wouldn't have bothered with if simple dominion was their goal.

[–] morgana-31 8 years ago

What annoys me along with these pathological error's, is the disturbing resurgence of Judeo-Christian themed blockbuster's.

Well the subtitle of the novel is A Tale Of The Christ remember?

But if we are going to pick out errors, and since you brought it up, Pontius Pilate did not say that Jesus was dangerous than the zealots. He did not want to even be involved in what he considered a petty squabble amongst the Jews.

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

Not likely he would say THAT and when Jesus is brought before him, suggest that Rome has no case against him. It's very odd that Christian producers would essentially ignore the Gospel version of events in favor of something that completely contradicts it.

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

it's very odd that Christian producers

The reason for that oddity is that they are charlatans who falsely claim to be Christians who are making Christian films, but who always make secular films under a false pretense of Christianity, and who always water-down, distort and delete many core elements of Christianity so as not to be offensive to anyone [except for offensive to real Christians who actually believe the Bible].

[–] Pete8680 8 years ago

according 2 Wikipedia, ancient Romans had locks & keys.

[–] King-Jon-Snow 8 years ago

It's based on a fictional novel. Not sure what the problem is.

The  in The North!

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

I heard that the Jesus character in this film says "you will get over your personal hang-ups," or some such nonsense hippy-speak. The real Jesus didn't talk like that.

I bet the other characters in the film also talk in such nonsensical modern ways. Those are some pretty huge historical inaccuracies too.

[–] KatharineFanatic 8 years ago

Why does Pilate have a beard? Facial hair wasn't considered cool in Ancient Rome for another two centuries!

[–] remildragos 8 years ago

Definitely true. In fact the whole notion of barbarians, comes from "barba" beard in latin. Romans thought that only barbarians had beards.

[–] Trax-3 8 years ago

Definitely true. In fact the whole notion of barbarians, comes from "barba" beard in latin. Romans thought that only barbarians had beards.

No, it comes from bar-bar i.e. mocking the unintelligible speech of foreigners.

[–] vranger 8 years ago

You simply don't know that. And it is certain that the Apostles DID exist. Where was the central impulse for their conversion? What was the motive from them to suffer and martyr themselves? Preaching wasn't a ticket to wealth and success in the way a few have turned it into in recent decades.

I just think you're too simple-minded to have thought this through. ;-)

No one questions that Buddha existed. No one questions that Mohammad existed. I always find it amusing that dimwits like you, who want to troll, question that Jesus existed.

[–] KatharineFanatic 8 years ago

Actually, there's historical evidence Jesus did exist. Secular sources cite him / the events around his following.

[–] rs-61 8 years ago

Wrong. In fact the bible was really written by the Romans to pacify the Judeans--http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/