the_cave

While I'm at it...since Philo also called Pilate an epitropoi, what does this mean? Does it mean that Philo also used the terms interchangeably? Does it also mean that Josephus used Philo as a source?

spin

So scratch Josephus.

Does not compute, Will Robinson. <Flails arms.>

You do realize that we are dealing with two different languages. Tacitus wrote in Latin. Epitropos is Greek. "Praefectus" and "procurator" are Latin. Tacitus understands these terms having been through the ranks of service. The problem is how the Greeks translated these terms prior to Claudius. People merely retroject epitropos into pre-Claudian times for "procurator" without justification.

He could have been reading Mickey Mouse... well, maybe not, but what he read is beyond your perception... without tangible text-level similarities and that is unlikely seeing as they both wrote in Greek.


spin

Gamera

Just google it and find out.

As I said, the errors are discovered all the typical way: archaeology, comparison with other texts, internal consistency.

That's what we mean by "error". We don't need a degree in epistomology to agree on a standard of accuracy in evaluating statements in a text.

Historicity, however, raises other problems that are epistomological, and goes to the broader question of what we mean by "history."

the_cave

Scratch him for what? I'm asking what he meant by Epitropos vs. eparchon.

So are you claiming that epitropos did not mean "procurator" for Josephus? If not, what did he mean by it, and what did he mean by eparchon?

The similarity is, by Tacitus' day, eparchon and procurator meant the same thing, and all three authors (each living in a different generation) attribute the title to Pilate. Why would this happen, if Pilate were really a prefect, unless there is some relationship among the texts?

spin

I just cannot fathom how you get to your conclusions from what I said.

(:huh: Oh, fuck. :huh

You are too confused for me.


spin

the_cave

Great, then what do you think Josephus meant by a) epitropos and b) eparchon

Whoops, I meant epitropos. The similarity is that epitropos and procurator would (presumably) have meant the same thing to Tacitus.

And you are avoiding answering the question!

spin

Josephus depended on his sources.

This is one of your typical kludges. Always trying to be hindu with confounding things (all the "this is that"-ism). It is endemic in your cover ups. We already know you have the desire to believe: why bother cloaking it in a semblance of rationality? Belief is not rational. (And rationality is not the be-all and end-all of our aims in existence.)

Did Tacitus read Greek? Would Tacitus have read a Greek source for the Pilate information? Ultimately, you are arguing my case for me. The writer of the christian material in Tacitus was confused and it was probably because he didn't know that, before Claudius augmented the status of procurators, Judea, being a minor province, was governed by a military officer. Tacitus showed he knew the developments in Judea and regarding procurators in general. Church scribes would have been far less likely to know about such things being far removed from the period and without Tacitus's upbringing and training regarding Roman administration.

The notion of Pontius Pilate being presented as a procurator in the passage necessitates his being the governor of Judea, not a financial administrator, which the position was before Claudius. The mistake would have been made by someone who didn't have the knowledge of a Tacitus; it could easily have been made by someone working from the Greek without the knowledge of a Tacitus.

Tacitus provides invaluable knowledge as to this change and the error militates against Tacitus having called Pilate a procurator.

If one understood the whole question and its premises one might have the opportunity to avoid it.


spin

Roger Pearse

You have misunderstood my post then. The point is that governors could do a lot of pretty extreme stuff, so long as the emperor didn't get upset.

Cicero records one businessman, made a prefect and given a troop of horse, who beseiged the senate of Salamis in their own senate-house and starved several of them to death. Cicero objected to this, but there is no suggestion that there was some *technical* barrier.

Please read my comments again. You're mentally imagining a modern official here, with a set of rules and authorisations. This is not a good model for how the Romans actually governed their provinces.

There isn't a lot of difference, in some respects. No doubt this is why they ended up being the same. You could think of a procurator as the emperor's bailiff, responsible for taxes.

Remember, these provinces are all basically places conquered by the Romans. Think of another governor who wrote to his wife about his province in Spain, "Hurrah! I've sold up half the Baetici and raised five million!"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

If he depended on his sources, then why does he call Fadus an eparchon when he clearly has access to a letter from Claudius (presumably written in Latin) which calls him by a term (presumably procurator) which Josephus then translates as epitropos? The fact that he used sources doesn't explain what he understood the terms to mean. So, again, what did Josephus understand each term to mean?

Your assumptions about what I believe or don't believe are by now mostly just irritating. I don't even know what this "desire to believe" you're talking about might mean. Desire to believe what? It's no wonder you're so confused--for some bizarre reason you're unable to imagine that I might not be approaching the question from a truly skeptical position, i.e. one which makes no religious or areligious presumptions about history whatsoever. Is this because you can't imagine that anyone would disagree with you unless they had an apologetic reason to? I have no idea, but your life would be easier (and so would mine) if you would at least try to assume that I am merely interested, just like you, in evidence-based history. Once again, I have always extended you the benefit of the doubt that your arguments are made in good faith. It continues to be disappointing that you can't extend me the same courtesy.

Possibly true, but it's rather off-topic.

My questions exactly. From what I can tell, he didn't and wouldn't have. But I don't know for certain.

So what? If it's the correct case, then I should be arguing it.

Now this is interesting--what makes you think it is Christian? It is in fact denigrating towards Christian belief--the only sympathetic treatment is the detailed description of Nero's tortures. But all that takes is an anti-Neronean attitude.

Sure--if Pilate could not demonstrably have been both prefect and procurator, and if Tacitus did not read Greek, then it seems unlikely that the passage is Tacitean. (Though that doesn't necessarily mean it's a Christian insertion, IMO.)

spin

Why don't you save me the trouble of saying that you are leaving a lot out of your discourse, by including it next time? References for example (my substantive posts give references). The bases for your assumptions for another.

( )

People usually disagree with me. You're not suffering any special treatment.

Right, I should forget your track-record and start afresh every time you speculate weird and wonderful ways to get around some problem or other. For instance, that a Roman official held two distinct administrative positions in the provinces at the same time.

He may have, but it's irrelevant, given his demonstrated background knowledge.

By all means, do.

Veiled martyriological material with nasty things happening to christians which should earn the respect of even passers-by bundled with the kerygmatic message.

For effort.


spin