SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DMaA who wrote (26372)1/26/2004 10:40:16 AM
From: gamesmistress  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793888
 
Even the scholarly book that post cited didn't claim to be the final answer, but Aramaic as the common language and Latin the language for the Romans seems to be a reasonable choice based on the historical record. [edit: that post also said the area was quadriligual; I wonder what the fourth language was? Nah, let's not go there. :-) ]

Gibson's objective was a faithful recreation of Jesus's Passion and Death as told in the Gospels, so for those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, they undoubtedly will hold the movie to be the "ultimate authority" on the subject. They probably also believe Gibson's "The Patriot" and "Braveheart" to be historically accurate as well, but what the heck.



To: DMaA who wrote (26372)1/26/2004 2:00:06 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793888
 
I looked back at her with equal amazement and asked, do you mean the Romans didn't speak Latin? This wasn't her subject so she said she'd look into it but I never got satisfactory closure to the problem.


All educated Romans of the 1st century spoke Greek. The common people back in Italy might have spoken only Latin; but the eastern half of the empire spoke Greek as its common language.