silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.
First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.
I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?
What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.
As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.
At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."
I’m not making a mistake here—because I am speaking strictly in terms of cinema (since that is the subject of this PDF at hand)—so:
You’re getting the cinematic details wrong, even if you’ve actually got the history straight.
You’re right about that—I’m not disputing your point. But honestly, did you really expect them to obsess over specific Latin dialects from that era? Give me a break. You should be grateful they even bothered using official Latin at all, especially when you look at the track record of other "linguistically authentic" period pieces out there. 🙂
silentviper19 As I was saying:
Everyone can get behind the idea that Aramaic was the spoken tongue, but trying to reconstruct its exact nuances is a massive uphill battle—it would be like claiming we know precisely how ancient Germanic tribes spoke just because we have the records left behind by Cyril and Methodius.
If we’re going to follow that line of reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to claim that so many extinct languages have been "reconstructed"—but they have. They're dead, sure, but they aren't gone. We can bring them back enough to make sense of them—not perfectly, mind you, but sufficiently to grasp their structure. Take the Etruscan language, for example; unfortunately, we still haven't quite cracked the code on that one.
silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.
First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.
I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?
What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.
As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.
At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."
I could agree with you there—but let’s be realistic. During that specific window of time, maintaining stability in Judea was absolutely not in Rome's best interest from a purely pragmatic military standpoint. If you look at the sheer logistical nightmare a rebellion would have caused their legions, it makes sense. Besides, we all know exactly what happened to the Jews just a few decades after they decided to stage an uprising.
P.S.: I really hope that while we’re hashing this out, you understand my intention here—I am not bringing Jesus into this discussion at all. We are sticking strictly to the linguistic, archaeological, and historical facts. 🙂
silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.
First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.
I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?
What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.
As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.
At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."
👍
silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.
First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.
I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?
What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.
As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.
At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."
That sounds a bit harsh, and I'm sure that wasn't his intention. Even if we agree that the Romans in that era wouldn't have been speaking official Latin, you'll have to admit—both you and I would much rather hear something resembling the period than standard modern English.
