EarlDoherty

First of all, what is "fantomatic"?

I think you are confusing an "official language" with a "lingua franca." And even then it was hardly empire-wide. In the western provinces such as Spain and Gaul the official language, let alone the lingua franca, was hardly Greek. The Greek language and culture by and large only existed in the east, in those territories which were Greek under the Hellenistic monarchies following Alexander. (As Rome penetrated east, Greek culture and language went west to Rome, but it was absorbed only as a secondary cultural phenomenon among the educated classes, not as an "official" takeover.) When Rome conquered the east, the language there did not suddenly turn to Latin. A Roman administration (governor, etc.) set up in a Greek territory did not impose Latin as some kind of conqueror's requirement. Society continued to be largely Greek speaking. The Palestine area, while it possessed a Greek lingua franca, particularly among the educated classes, remained Aramaic speaking.

But many of the Greek upper classes in the east, particularly those who aspired to moving up in the Roman-dominated world, adopted Roman names, the so-called "tria nomina". Government administration no doubt remained in Greek because the civil service was made up of locals who spoke Greek. Communication within the government systems in those provinces would be largely in Greek. But a Roman governor and his staff, if from Rome, would have communicated in Latin, just as an American embassy staff in a foreign language country conducts its own business in English, and just as such embassies report back to Washington in English.

My point in regard to Tacitus was solely confined to reports from Roman governors back to Rome. I see no justification (if there's specific evidence, please present it) for thinking that Pilate would have reported to Rome in the Greek language. (His area of administration was not even Greek, it was Aramaic Judea.)

Pliny was the Roman governor of the 'Greek' province of Bithynia, and I don't know what language he used in communicating with the local administration in his province, quite possibly Greek. But when he wrote to the emperor Trajan he wrote in Latin, and received a reply in Latin. I assume it was the same case in sending official reports back to Rome. They would have been in Latin.

Earl Doherty

Littlejohn

Sorry..I derived this word from english "fantom" (I think it is "ghost" meaning)

In Italian "fantomatico" is something which many people speak but is not certain its existence. (which is why the association with "fantom")

Exactly. Before the Romans conquered the Middle East and Egypt, the Greeks, following the conquests of Alexander the Great, ruled on those territories for over 200 years. In this period the Greek language became the "lingua franca" and was called "koinè". It one superimposed on the aramaic, which until then was the "lingua franca" of the Middle East. With the Roman conquest, the "koinè" continued to remain "lingua franca", along with aramaic.

Thanks to greek "koinè", Roman governors of those provinces, together with officials who depended upon them, could communicate with citizens of those provinces although they did not knew neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic and nor the Egyptian. It's clear, however, that these governors, to merit the position, had at least know the greek language. Idem for officials of the Roman local administrations.

The much-celebrated the first Christian martyr, ie St. Stephen, other was not than an official of Greek origin of the roman government of Judea. Probably he was taken in as an officer as well as knew he the greek, te latin and aramaic languages. Apart from the fact that he did not knew what ever meant "Christian", since in his day Christianity did not exist again, but it is very likely that he deserved his end, ie killed by a group of rebels "messianistici" (inherents to messiah) which surprised he on the road to Jerusalem, about 20 km from the city

But this is what I have since the beginning sustained! I totally agree with you. Maybe in my exposition I was not quite clear.

I had said, for precisely, that Pilate NEVER could write a report which included the word Christos or Christus instead of Latin Unctus!... If it was true that Jesus was listed as "messiah", in its jewish environment of Jerusalem, he could be appealed only as "maschah" and NOT as Christus! ,

It follows that in his "fantomatic" report, Pilate would have written the word "UNCTUS", or a transliteration in Latin of the hebraic-aramaic "maschiah", but NEVER Christus. This is an evidence that the paragraph 44 of the Annales' XV book can not have been written by Tacitus, as this historic Latin, famous for its seriousness, would never have written something so absurd! (inter alia Pilate never did execute Jesus!)


All best

Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

Hi Vid!

Your question is a very acute and I find it strange that nobody so far has done such a relief.

The answer is summed up by an Italian saying: "salvare capra e cavoli!" (save goat and cabbage)

I want to say this, that there were two distinct and opposing emergencies. The first was that not to imply that Jesus, at the time of Claudio, could still be alive (which was absolutely counterproductive for the cheerful "counterfeiters"). If they had correct, into Suetonius writings, Crestus with Christus, all those who would read Suetonius, after the fourth century, were asking what Jesus did in Rome at the time of Claudius.

The second requirement was to correct the word "chrestians", which was certainly written originally by Suetonius, with "christians", in order to mystified that the Romans, at least until the middle of the fourth century, called the followers of Jesus "chrestians" and NOT "christians." (see Justin M., Lattanzio and Tertullian)


All best


Littlejohn

.