The Linguistic Accuracy of 'The Passion of the Christ': Latin, Greek, and Aramaic in Historical Context
When The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004, one of the most discussed aspects of the film was its choice of language for the Romans, primarily Latin. Critics and audiences alike wondered about the linguistic accuracy of the film, especially given that Romans spoke both Latin and Greek in the 1st century AD. This article explores the historical context and artistic choices made by director Mel Gibson, focusing on the prevalence and use of languages such as Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.
Historical Context
During the time of Jesus, in the 1st century AD, the Roman Empire was vast and diverse. Latin, the official language of the Roman administration, was predominantly used by officials and in formal written communications. However, due to the process of Hellenization, Greek was widely spoken in the Eastern provinces of the Empire, including Judea. This dialect, known as Koine Greek, was commonly used for trade, literature, and everyday communication.
Artistic Choice
Mel Gibson may have chosen to use Latin for the Romans to convey a sense of historical authenticity and gravitas. Latin has a profound historical significance and can evoke images of the Roman Empire's authority and power. For the general audience, Latin adds a layer of complexity that serves to establish the film's setting within a historical, vast, and powerful empire.
Other Languages in the Film
In addition to Latin, the film includes Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his disciples, and Hebrew, representing the diverse linguistic environment of the time. These languages provide contextual depth and authenticity to the narrative, reflecting the cultural and religious diversity of the period. Aramaic and Hebrew have significant religious and historical significance, further enriching the film's portrayal of the events leading up to and during the Passion of Christ.
Historical Inaccuracy of Roman Soldiers
Another critique of the film The Passion of the Christ, especially among historians and scholars, is the inaccuracy in portraying the Roman soldiers. The criticism points out that the soldiers, dressed and portrayed with military precision, seem more like participants in a modern "snuff movie" than soldiers from the 1st century AD. Historically, Roman soldiers were not typically depicted in such a manner. The portrayal of Roman soldiers in the film, as well as the language choices, raises questions about the film's commitment to historical accuracy.
Historically, Roman soldiers were well-trained, professional, and often spoke Latin. While Greek was more commonly used in the eastern part of the empire, the language of the soldiers would still have been influenced by their Roman commanders. The soldiers in the film, however, are depicted with anachronistic and unrealistic attributes that detract from the film's authenticity.
Language Use in the Time of Jesus
It is important to note that while Greek had become a widely used language in the eastern Mediterranean, Latin, as the original language of Rome, remained the language of imperial administration, legislation, and the military. Jesus himself would likely have known some Greek, but his daily language would have been Aramaic. The use of Latin by Roman officials reinforced the hierarchical and administrative structure of the Roman Empire.
Mel Gibson's choice to use Latin for the Romans in 'The Passion of the Christ' was an artistic decision that aimed to evoke the historical and cultural significance of the Roman Empire. While Greek and Aramaic were also spoken, the use of Latin serves to emphasize the authority and power of the Roman officials and their administration. The film's portrayal should be appreciated as reflecting these choices rather than as a strictly historical document. However, the inaccuracy in the portrayal of Roman soldiers remains a point of contention for many.
In conclusion, The Passion of the Christ offers a rich and layered portrayal of language use in the time of Jesus, highlighting the coexistence of Greek and Latin in the Empire, and the prevalence of Aramaic among the local population. This linguistic diversity adds depth to the film's setting and narrative. While it is important to acknowledge the artist's choices, the film's commitment to historical accuracy, especially in depicting the Roman military, is a subject of ongoing debate.