Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

What the expert is saying, in my reading of English, is that both offices existed in the time of Pilate

Not simultaneously in the same place, and not in Judea under Pilate. The expert quoted the Prosopography stating the exact opposite.

Quote:

that the official office/title which Pilate held AS GOVERNOR was "Prefect." This expert, however, apparently in contrast to Carrier, seems to think that Pilate did not co-hold the office of procurator--though he is not absolutely sure (his "evidently").

You need to read more carefully. First note what Ehrman's actual question was, and then what the first words of the expert's response were.

Ehrman's question to the expert (as quoted by Ehrman in his blog):

Quote:

My question: The New Testament indicates that Pontius Pilate was a procurator; the inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima indicate that he was a prefect. Is it possible that he could have been both things at once?

The question: "Could he have been both things at once?"

The answer" "Not really."

They are different titles for the same job because the title changed over time. It was not an especially coordinated evolution. It did not change everywhere at the same time, but it was never the same title in the same place simultaneously, and no one was given that title in Judea until after Agrippa was removed in 41 CE.

Grog · 04-26-2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Earl, my real name is written under my username and location details (right under the red "A").

I'll let Ehrman's expert speak for himself on the procurator/prefect matter:

Quote:

His answer was quick and to the point. I quote: ‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job. The initial growth of equestrian posts in the emperor’s service was a gradual, haphazard process, and there was little concern to fix titles for them [see, e.g., Talbert's chap. 9 in CAH ed. 2 vol. X]. PP could just as well have had the title procurator, but evidently he didn’t … PIR (ed. 2, 1998) P 815 sums it up neatly: “praeses Iudaeae ordinis equestris usque ad Claudii tempora non procurator, sed praefectus fuit….” [This comes from the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (i.e., The Prosopography of the Roman Empire); I translate the Latin as follows: “Up until the time of Claudius [i.e., 41-54 CE], the provincial governor of Judea, a man of the equestrian order, was not a procurator but a prefect.”].

No procurators in Judea until Claudius.

Ehrman's expert agreed with Carrier that procurator and prefect were two titles for the same job. He then turns to the PIR to say the opposite of what he just said. The PIR contradicts what Ehrman's expert said by seeming to say there was a fixed title of prefect until Claudius. That is exactly opposite of "The initial growth of equestrian posts in the emperor’s service was a gradual, haphazard process, and there was little concern to fix titles for them." Carrier's point is that Ehrman errs when he "takes Tacitus to task" for making this error. It seems that there is confusion on this point even now. Apparently, Tacitus did not consult the PIR when he wrote Annals. I would like to read what Talbert says on this, though.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Earl, my real name is written under my username and location details (right under the red "A").

I'll let Ehrman's expert speak for himself on the procurator/prefect matter:

No procurators in Judea until Claudius.

Ehrman's expert agreed with Carrier that procurator and prefect were two titles for the same job.

Not in the same place at the same time. I repeat, the expert said, "not really" directly in response to Ehrman's question of whether Pilate "could have been both things at once."

When prefects starting bevoming procurators, it didn't happen everywhere at the same time, that's what the expert was saying. It was a mishmash as far as consistency across the Empire, however Wherever the particular province was, it was always still one or the other, not both. It would have been redundant to retain the title of prefect after becoming a procurator.

EarlDoherty · 04-26-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dio

The question: "Could he have been both things at once?"

The answer" "Not really."

They are different titles for the same job because the title changed over time. It was not an especially coordinated evolution. It did not change everywhere at the same time, but it was never the same title in the same place simultaneously, and no one was given that title in Judea until after Agrippa was removed in 41 CE.

Could he have been both things at once is not the same question as "did both offices exist at the same time". The answer "Not really" answers only the question of whether Pilate held both offices. To that extent, this is a different opinion than that of Carrier.

Naturally, the "title" given to the governor as such was not both titles at the same time. If Pilate held both titles, it would have been by virtue of holding two different offices. (Have you never heard in modern business or government of one person or official holding the responsibilities of two different offices and thereby holding two titles?) And your "no one was given that title [of procurator] in Judea until after Agrippa was removed" cannot be derived from your quote from Ehrman's expert. That is you misinterpreting the quote. I ask again, how could he have said:

Quote:

PP could just as well have had the title procurator, but evidently he didn’t...

if no procurators existed in Judea before claudius?

If the issue is whether Pilate held both offices at once, that is another matter. That is the only thing the expert seems to have pronounced on, disagreeing with Carrier's opinion. But this is all beside the point. Ehrman's objection is again a red herring. Whether Pilate held both offices or not does not change the fact that the title for governor in Pilate's time was PREFECT, making the reference in Tacitus erroneous.

Earl Doherty

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dio

The question: "Could he have been both things at once?"

The answer" "Not really."

They are different titles for the same job because the title changed over time. It was not an especially coordinated evolution. It did not change everywhere at the same time, but it was never the same title in the same place simultaneously, and no one was given that title in Judea until after Agrippa was removed in 41 CE.

Could he have been both things at once is not the same question as "did both offices exist at the same time". The answer "Not really" answers only the question of whether Pilate held both offices. To that extent, this is a different opinion than that of Carrier.

Since that is the only question that is relevant, and the only question that Ehrman asked, then how has Carrier shown Ehrman to be wrong about Tacitus?

Quote:

Naturally, the "title" given to the governor as such was not both titles at the same time. If Pilate held both titles, it would have been by virtue of holding two different offices.

Are you suggesting that Pilate was Governor of two Provinces at once? because that's the only way he could have held both titles. There was no such position as "procurator" in Judea while Pilate was there.

Quote:

And your "no one was given that title [of procurator] in Judea until after Agrippa was removed" cannot be derived from your quote from Ehrman's expert. That is you misinterpreting the quote.

I wasn't citing Ehrman's expert in that instance, and never said I was. I do have some degree of knowledge myself. I filled in a blank.

Quote:

I ask again, how could he have said:

Quote:

PP could just as well have had the title procurator, but evidently he didn’t...

if no procurators existed in Judea before claudius?

Because the title existed in the Empire at large, and that title could have been given to Pilate, it just wasn't. The fact that his inscription calls him a prefect is proof that he wasn't because procurator is a better title than prefect.

Quote:

If the issue is whether Pilate held both offices at once, that is another matter. That is the only thing the expert seems to have pronounced on, disagreeing with Carrier's opinion.

Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Quote:

But this is all beside the point. Ehrman's objection is again a red herring. Whether Pilate held both offices or not does not change the fact that the title for governor in Pilate's time was PREFECT, making the reference in Tacitus erroneous.

Ehrman SAYS it was erroneous. This is what Ehrman says about it in his book:

Quote:

It should be clear in any event that Tacitus is basing his comment about Jesus on hearsay rather than, say, detailed historical research. Had he done serious research, one might have expected him to say more, if even just a bit. But even more to the point, brief though his comment is, Tacitus is precisely wrong in one thing he says. He calls Pilate the “procurator” of Judea. We now know from the inscription discovered in 1961 at Caesarea that as governor, Pilate had the title and rank, not of (one who dealt principally with revenue collection), but of prefect (one who also had military forces at his command). This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus, written at the time of his execution (if in fact such a record ever existed, which is highly doubtful). He therefore had heard the information. Whether he heard it from Christians or someone else is anyone’s guess.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 845-848). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

He also says that the Tacitus passage "is not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man named Jesus."

So what are you saying Ehrman is wrong about?

EarlDoherty · 04-26-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Could he have been both things at once is not the same question as "did both offices exist at the same time". The answer "Not really" answers only the question of whether Pilate held both offices. To that extent, this is a different opinion than that of Carrier.

Since that is the only question that is relevant, and the only question that Ehrman asked, then how has Carrier shown Ehrman to be wrong about Tacitus?

Are you suggesting that Pilate was Governor of two Provinces at once? because that's the only way he could have held both titles. There was no such position as "procurator" in Judea while Pilate was there.

I wasn't citing Ehrman's expert in that instance, and never said I was. I do have some degree of knowledge myself. I filled in a blank.

Because the title existed in the Empire at large, and that title could have been given to Pilate, it just wasn't. The fact that his inscription calls him a prefect is proof that he wasn't because procurator is a better title than prefect.

Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Ehrman SAYS it was erroneous. This is what Ehrman says about it in his book:

Quote:

It should be clear in any event that Tacitus is basing his comment about Jesus on hearsay rather than, say, detailed historical research. Had he done serious research, one might have expected him to say more, if even just a bit. But even more to the point, brief though his comment is, Tacitus is precisely wrong in one thing he says. He calls Pilate the “procurator” of Judea. We now know from the inscription discovered in 1961 at Caesarea that as governor, Pilate had the title and rank, not of (one who dealt principally with revenue collection), but of prefect (one who also had military forces at his command). This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus, written at the time of his execution (if in fact such a record ever existed, which is highly doubtful). He therefore had heard the information. Whether he heard it from Christians or someone else is anyone’s guess.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 845-848). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

He also says that the Tacitus passage "is not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man named Jesus."

So what are you saying Ehrman is wrong about?

You think I'm suggesting that anyone could be interpreting Pilate as holding the governorships of two provinces?

I give up. I'm throwing in the towel.

Anyway, I've gone this far only because I am trying to distract myself from a very painful and stubborn kidney stone. I'm sure there are much better and more satisfying ways of doing that, like banging my head against the wall or tearing my fingernails out, than trying to have a debate with you.

Earl Doherty

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-26-2012, 11:33 AM

I'm telling you that's the only way he could have held both titles at once. He could not have held them both for the same place because it was redundant. It was the same office. There were not provinces that had both a procurator and prefect. It was one or the other, not both.

I had a kidney stone last year. My condolences. Actually passing one is indescribable. Good luck to you.

Toto · 04-26-2012, 01:23 PM

Everyone in this thread needs to take a deep breath and calm down - and check out Stephan Huller's posts in the Baptism of Jesus thread where he proves that mythicism is correct!

For reference, here is Carrier's blog on the Pilate as prefect/procurator question.

Quote:

For my Master of Philosophy at Columbia University (aka M.Phil., a graduate degree between M.A. and Ph.D., sort of like what everyone else calls ABD) I completed a thesis in preparation for working up a prospectus for my dissertation. That thesis was never published, mainly because, though it is more thorough and meticulous than anything on its topic, someone I’d never heard of beat me to publication with their own paper arguing the same thesis (albeit a lot less comprehensively and in a more wishy washy way, but nevertheless, journals won’t publish my work now because “it’s already been done,” as one editor directly told me). It’s a mind-numbingly boring thesis. But I worked really hard on it and I’m sure someone will find it useful someday. So I updated it (even citing and incorporating that other paper, as well as all the revisions asked for by my peer reviewers) and published it on my website for anyone crazy enough to read it: Herod the Procurator: Was Herod the Great a Roman Governor of Syria? (PDF)

...

There follows a discussion of the relationship of this to Christian apologetics, the study of ancient history, and hookers - and why Pilate could have been both procurator and prefect.

EarlDoherty · 04-26-2012, 02:16 PM

Well, since Carrier has pointed to that study in which he addresses the Pilate issue, he won't mind if I now post the relevant excerpts from it which he had sent to me in 2007. There is so much misinformation and contradictory opinion about what Carrier believes and has said on the Pilate as Prefect/Procurator question, that we need to go to the horse's mouth. And I'll take Carrier's style of scholarship any day over Ehrman's in Did Jesus Exist? (let alone his postings which try to scramble away from what Carrier has said about him.)

By the way, Carrier is Carrier and always will be. So get over his tone and style and MOVE ON. The meat is in what he reveals about Ehrman's arguments, which would be the same no matter what the tone and style. I'm currently doing a series, as you know, on Vridar, responding in great detail to what Ehrman says in DJE. I'm adopting a more civil tone, but the end result is still the same. Ehrman's case against mythicism stinks, and in this case (never mind his other books) his lack of knowledge of the subject, his reading skills, his general reasoning, his use of evidence and sheer invention of it, and just about everything else, shares in the same malodorous quality.

From "Was Herod the Great Roman Governor of Syria" (p.34f) [I didn't reproduce the footnotes, but as you can see, they are quite copious.]

Quote:

...In other words, procurators in Augustan times did not have any legal or military authority: they did not hear cases or lead troops, and in fact when faced with any dispute they had to appeal to the courts as any other private citizen would. They were subservient to all the laws and legal authorities, and were certainly not “second only to the provincial governor” in any provincial administration. They were not even a formal part of the administration, though they were certainly intimately involved with it….

In the reign of Augustus, the supreme example is the prefect of Egypt, who was also the procurator of Egypt.87 Egypt is an excellent example of the strange (to us) character of ancient government: all land in Egypt was originally owned by the kings. Upon his victory over Queen Cleopatra, all of Egypt became the private possession of Augustus, and he kept it that way to prevent any Senatorial upstarts from using it as a base to launch another civil war. Thus, all “taxes” in Egypt were technically paid directly to Augustus and not to Rome as such, and hiring the prefect of the province to be chief procurator as well would be too convenient to pass up. It is also fairly certain that the prefects of Judaea were also procurators. For example, under Tiberius, Pontius Pilate was, besides the prefect of Judaea, also procurator there.88 Pilate clearly engages in actions related to collecting and spending imperial money, suggesting procuratorial duties, though of course his legal powers would stem solely from his attested position as prefect.89 But the decisive evidence is the contemporary Philo, who reports that “Pilate was one of the prefects appointed procurator of Judaea” (Leg. ad Gaium 38); Josephus also calls Pilate a procurator in BJ 2.169. Josephus, in fact, routinely calls the prefects of Judaea procurators (see discussion above), and their activities often clearly involve financial matters….

There is no evidence that any province, no matter how small, was ever governed by a procurator lacking a prefecture. In the words of Jones, “two emperors so careful of constitutional proprieties as Augustus and Tiberius” would not have made mere procurators provincial governors, “and a careful examination of the evidence has made it very improbable that they did,” noting that inscriptions from the period always describe small-scale governors as praefectus—or praeses or pro legato (which mean essentially the same thing).91 Jones believes that this began to change in the reign of Claudius, but his evidence is re-examined and the conclusion refuted by Millar.92 In general, Jones’ contrary evidence is either ambiguous as to whether attested procurators were in fact also governors, or fails to account for procurators acting illegally, procurators who were also prefects, etc. (some of Millar’s evidence unfortunately falls into these errors as well). In the latter category are some cases where the men in question are referred to in sources by the first title only by way of abbreviation, or perhaps covert social commentary, as when Tacitus describes Pilate as a procurator in his account of Christianity in the context of the Neronian fire, Annals 15.44; for we know in fact that Pilate was a prefect as well….

Earl Doherty

Steven Carr · 04-26-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So when Ehrman claimed his expert told him prefect and procurator are two possible titles, he was simply wrong?

They were titles for largely the same function, but they came about at different times. They were never called both at the same time. Prefects were also military leaders and procurators were civilians. There is a distinction of meaning there.

Their functions were largely the same, but those titles were not interchangeable because they existed at different times.

So Ehrman's expert was wrong to say they were two possible titles for the same thing, a response which so disappointed Ehrman he had to go and find something else to try to back him up.

Would you like me to dig up historicists slaying G. A.Wells when he also claimed that Tacitus had made a mistake calling Pilate a procurator, an (unconvicing to me) mythicist claim rather amusingly revived by Ehrman?

Calling somebody by a title that was anachronistic at that time is not even a mistake, even if Ehrman was right. It would simply be bringing titles up to
date, so that readers of the present age have something to use as a reference.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2012, 11:33 AM	#87
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I'm telling you that's the only way he could have held both titles at once. He could not have held them both for the same place because it was redundant. It was the same office. There were not provinces that had both a procurator and prefect. It was one or the other, not both. I had a kidney stone last year. My condolences. Actually passing one is indescribable. Good luck to you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.