Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-09-2008, 08:57 AM | #91 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Nevertheless, there is little literature on the subject. spin |
|
04-09-2008, 09:01 AM | #92 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
? Quote:
spin |
|||
04-09-2008, 09:21 AM | #93 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
Quote:
[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. |
|
04-09-2008, 10:02 AM | #94 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Quote:
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".) |
|
04-09-2008, 10:32 AM | #95 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
Cheers. |
||
04-09-2008, 11:01 AM | #96 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Quote:
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.) |
|
04-09-2008, 11:07 AM | #97 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Andrew Criddle |
|
04-09-2008, 11:18 AM | #98 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
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. |
||
04-09-2008, 02:07 PM | #99 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
Quote:
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. |
|
04-09-2008, 02:58 PM | #100 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
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:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|