FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-09-2008, 08:57 AM   #91
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I was thinking of an elderly paper by A.N.Sherwin-White, Procurator Augusti, Papers of the British School at Rome N.S. 2 (1939) pp.11-26
In fact this was one of the articles I wanted to read. Another would be "Jones, A.H.M. 'Procurators and Prefects in the Early Principate', in Studies in Roman Government and Law, Blackwell, Oxford (1960), pp 115-25", though unread I don't know if it is relevant.

Nevertheless, there is little literature on the subject.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 09:01 AM   #92
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Erroneous analogy.
Unlike your own repetition of your "Ebion" analogy?
You haven't shown any understanding of why it is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
So why don't you edit it?
?

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Quote:
Tacitus knew the status of the governors of Judea (see H. Bk 5.9)
Here is H. Bk. 5.9:
IX. Cneius Pompeius was the first of our countrymen to subdue the Jews. Availing himself of the right of conquest, he entered the temple. Thus it became commonly known that the place stood empty with no similitude of gods within, and that the shrine had nothing to reveal. The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed, the temple was left standing. After these provinces had fallen, in the course of our civil wars, into the hands of Marcus Antonius, Pacorus, king of the Parthians, seized Judæa. He was slain by Publius Ventidius, and the Parthians were driven back over the Euphrates. Caius Sosius reduced the Jews to subjection. The royal power, which had been bestowed by Antony on Herod, was augmented by the victorious Augustus. On Herod's death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod. Under Tiberius all was quiet. But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance. The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judæa to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave. He had married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, and so was the grandson-in-law, as Claudius was the grandson, of Antony.
Nothing in there about titles.
It shows his awareness of the state of administration in Judea and when it changed. See the link I referred to earlier here.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 09:21 AM   #93
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
It shows his awareness of the state of administration in Judea and when it changed. See the link I referred to earlier here.
You base your case on on Tacitus knowing that freedmen could not be Prefects, whereas occasionally freedmen did serve as Prefects:
[D]own to AD 69 the Prefect of the Fleet was regularly a freedman and in Tiberius' reign there was a freedman Prefect of Egypt.--A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138 / Edward T. Salmon, p. 68.
No Robots is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 10:02 AM   #94
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
Default

Quote:
While we may not have most of the books that Tertullian used, we need hardly suppose that he didn't have the Roman law books that specified why Christianity was a crime, and how it should be published. Ulpian's De officiis proconsularis which included such a section was written when Tertullian was a young man.
Which doesn't make it a good source for first-century criminal laws.

And yet, I'm not even claiming that Nero did not persecute a group which could be described as "Christian" (whether anachronistically or not). The evidence seems to support that he did, to some limited degree. I'm just asking: did the persecution of this group happen as described in the passage in Tacitus, or not? Do we have good reason to believe it did? (Note I said "good reason", not "reason".)
the_cave is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 10:32 AM   #95
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Which paradoxically works against authenticity, since Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator.
If you think that Tacitus making this mistake is a reason to question authenticity, I invite you to review the exchange spin and I had on this topic.

Ben.
If you have a summary post, can you link to it? There are multiple posters and topics in that thread.

Cheers.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:01 AM   #96
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
If you have a summary post, can you link to it? There are multiple posters and topics in that thread.
Ben should provide a link, but I would recommend starting on page 4 and working backwards. In short: the prefect/procurator distinction is not proof that the passage is not Tacitean, but still calls it into question.

However, I have another question: Josephus claims that Pilate took the temple money and spent it on an aqueduct. Would he have had the authority to do this as a prefect? Especially if the temple funds were taxation receipts?

(BTW, I came across a very interesting 1984 article by a scholar named Sara Mandell which claims the temple tax, strictly speaking, was a religious tax that was only paid by the pharisees.)
the_cave is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:07 AM   #97
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
It's convenient that a famous orator should make the blunder of an awful alliteration in the middle of the passage.
I've been wondering about the alliteration here, imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum, it does seem overblown but I wonder if Tacitus is making a virtue of necessity. procuratorem Pontium Pilatum is more or less required by the substance of what is being said, hence alliteration is almost unavoidable. By writing the passsage as he does Tacitus avoids the possible criticism that the passage is unintentionally over-alliterative, by making it obvious that the alliteration, (whether or not in the best taste), is entirely deliberate and intended.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM   #98
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post

If you think that Tacitus making this mistake is a reason to question authenticity, I invite you to review the exchange spin and I had on this topic.

Ben.
If you have a summary post, can you link to it? There are multiple posters and topics in that thread.
Indeed there are. There are even multiple topics in the individual posts that I am going to link to for you.

Post that probably most clearly expresses my own viewpoint (look for the boldfaced headings contrasting Josephus and Tacitus).
Response by spin to that post.
My brief summary of Syme on the Tacitean confusion between annexation to Syria and independent provincehood.

There are more twists and turns on later pages, IIRC, but this should get things started.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 02:07 PM   #99
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
[What that Tacitus knew what he was talking about when he used titles correctly? The man had held many of them and wrote about Roman affairs with some precision.
This is the kind of critical bootstrapping you often see in paleography. Authors are deemed to have certain qualities based on a review of the text, so any elemets in the text that contradict those qualities must not be the author's, even thought the text that established the deemed qualities had them.

Let's stipulate that Tacitus knew the proper titles for Roman authorities. Tacitus makes a lot of factual errors. That's simply the case. So it doesn't follow that any error in the texts must be an interpolation unless you assume Tacitus doesn't make mistakes, which in fact is not supported by the texts unless you amend them to take out the errors based on a conclusion that he doesn't make mistakes, which is curiously based on texts that have mistakes.
Gamera is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 02:58 PM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

The last time I looked into this matter (about 5 yrs ago) I recall that procurators (the technical title for a financial officer) were on the staff of the legate of Syria, and the governors of other larger provinces. They essentially oversaw tax collection. When a sub-region requires extra special (firm) governance, a Prefect (usually a military governor) may be assigned. Yet this Prefect may still carry the function of a procurator (tax collector).

In the case of Egypt, remember that it was not a province but part of the emperor's personal household. As a result, the emperor could appoint anyone he wished (especially an imperial freedman) to run it for him, and call him anything he wanted. The person who ruled Egypt in the name of the emperor certainly had soldiers under his direct authority, so Prefect would be an acceptable title.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
[What that Tacitus knew what he was talking about when he used titles correctly? The man had held many of them and wrote about Roman affairs with some precision.
This is the kind of critical bootstrapping you often see in paleography. Authors are deemed to have certain qualities based on a review of the text, so any elemets in the text that contradict those qualities must not be the author's, even thought the text that established the deemed qualities had them.

Let's stipulate that Tacitus knew the proper titles for Roman authorities. Tacitus makes a lot of factual errors. That's simply the case. So it doesn't follow that any error in the texts must be an interpolation unless you assume Tacitus doesn't make mistakes, which in fact is not supported by the texts unless you amend them to take out the errors based on a conclusion that he doesn't make mistakes, which is curiously based on texts that have mistakes.
DCHindley is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.