Talk:The Passion of the Christ/Archive 1

message: "Jim Caviezel portrays perhaps the most Semitic-looking Jesus ever on film"
What are the qualifications? Dark hairs, eyes..?.. And? Is this a stereotype? --Menchi (Talk) 06:27, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''most Semitic-looking Jesus'' 

message: I removed the following:  including Pope John Paul II who praised the film and wrote of its accuracy, "It is as it was." 
The comments attributed to Pope John Paul II are baseless and he ‘‘told no one his opinion.’’ says Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz who viewed the film with JP2.    Usedbook 20:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Endorsement from JP2 

message: Is it really relevant to include a piece on Gibson's religious views, whatever they are? Or whether it departs from accepted religious views? Every single portrayal of Jesus on film has done this in one way or another. It's a review of an artistic creation! - this is an article about a new movie - please let the viewer make up her or his mind after seeing the film. I'm inclined to delete the last two paragraphs but one.
Agendum 00:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of this Irrelevant 

message: I'm concerned about this section now, now that I've seen the movie.  Basically, I didn't really see the first or last points in the movie at all.  The first one basically states that nails alone wouldn't be able to support somebody, but the movie doesn't depict this.  Rather, it depicts nails and rope together.  The last point talks about the height of the cross, which also didn't seem to be accurate based on what I saw in the movie.  The cross seemed to be about nine feet long or so, ample to support a human and the necessary space in the ground to keep it upright.  The second point I can't really attest to.  RadicalBender 07:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that section based on pre-release notes. Regarding the nails, I'd have to watch the movie closely to see if the ropes were meant as primary support, or as temporary restraints. Regarding the height of the cross, a cross needs both underground, and aboveground, height. The actor is roughly six feet tall (6'2"), the footage I've seen shows additional suspension of something similar to his height, so, to reach the ground, it should be around 12 feet. To support the weight, usually a third of a fencepost (with no upper weight) should have at least a third buried, so, the post should have been at least 18 feet tall. If he was only being held a mere 3 feet off of the ground, that would be a nine-foot above ground cross, or a 13 1/2 foot cross carried. Ronabop 09:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Having seen the movie, I remember Jesus' feet being at about head height; say five feet above ground. Also his knees were bent, so feet to head he was probably about five feet. To me the cross looked like it could easily have been twelve or more feet high, giving us at least a couple of feet to put in the ground. Also the cross appeared to be embedded in rock, and could have had additional support round the base. Plus let's put this in context; every other movie in the world takes liberties with the size of props. It's part of the trade. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical and factual criticism

message: This is the most violent film I have ever seen. Roger Ebert 
:That should be attributed to him as POV, and added to the article.  That said, is it more violent than, say, A Clockwork Orange?  I haven't seen TPoTC.  Pakaran. 20:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence

message: And I wonder if anybody is even reading it. I did a search on Google and didn't find it. Seems silly writing an article that only wiki editors read, lol ChessPlayer 15:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a joke I missed here, ChessPlayer? DJ Clayworth 20:28, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article page is an orphan! 

message: Is it time to split this article into two articles, one following the film itself,
and the one focusing on the popular culture's reaction to the film? - Bevo 17:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say don't, because in a few months this article is going to stop growing anyway. DJ Clayworth 17:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to split this article? 

message: Ed's proposed wording is good; by all means cite the varying opinions on the language spoken by the Roman soldiers, preferably with a note that the question is not at all settled and probably never will be. Here's some relevant background:
First, the garrison in neighbouring Syria, which was the center of Roman power in the area, was made up of four crack regular legions: III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, and XII Fulminata. Had Pilate's soldiers belonged to any of these legions, they would have spoken Latin; since the Roman governor in Judaea was subordinate to the legate in Syria, his soldiers may well have been detachments of the Syrian garrison. The relevant passage of Josephus says that they carried Caesar's standards, which hints that they were part of a regular legion; auxiliary legions often (but not always) retained their native arms, clothing, insignias, etc.
Had Pilate's troops been non-Roman auxiliaries, which is also possible, they might have spoken either Greek or Latin amongst themselves: both were common enough among auxiliary troops. The officers would have been Latin-speaking Roman citizens in any case. 
A third and quite plausible possibility, as pointed out by Slrubenstein below, is that both guesses are correct; the Romans spoke Latin amongst themselves and Greek to others. Pilate himself certainly knew and used both languages; his coins are marked in Greek, while stones from his buildings are inscribed in Latin. 
In any case, I'm not aware of any conclusive evidence -- barracks graffiti, military payrolls, battle standards, written descriptions, etc. -- to which one could point as irrefutable proof. It seems that only nitpicking historians (like me) and people with axes to grind really care which language the soldiers spoke. HTH, and let me know if there are any other questions about this issue. 
(If anyone can figure out how to trim the above into a few sentences and integrate it in the proper section of the article, I would be most grateful. :-) --67.71.76.166 14:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Language rumour redux

message: From what i know of my readings, and after consulting my father (a retired Latin and Greek Prof), i can tell you that i dont think that the majority of the soldiers spoke greek. That is true for the late Roman army, when soldiers were mostly already non Roman (ie from Romanized provinces). In the 30s the Empire was just starting so most of the legionaries were Italian born. So: except for the auxiliary troops (mostly gaul and lybian at the time) the troops would speak Latin amongst themselves. As for the possibility of speaking in Greek to the others, not very peobable, because greek was common for a Roman to know, but an upper class Roman. Maybe the officers, but i dont think regular troops. Muriel 16:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek and soldiers