Peter Kirby

Great article! A few comments could help you hone the fine points.

The word in Greek (πραιτώριον), which Perseus tells me is not found in Josephus at all, is clearly just a loaner from the Latin Praetorium, as you know. The "official residence" of a Roman governor is certainly one use of the word, but that may not be its entire scope (not even to belabor whether a prefect of Judea could be said to have an "official residence" both in Caesarea and also in Jerusalem, where he regurlarly quartered on holidays and did political business, and I don't suppose they put him up at the inn).

Harry Thurston Peck writes in Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities: "Praetorium. The headquarters in the Roman camp; a wide space, on which stood the general's tent, the altar of the camp, the augurale, and the tribunal. (See Castra.) In the provinces this name was given to the official residence of the governor (Verr. iv. 28, 65) and to any large country-house (Calig. 37)." The Princeton Encylcopedia of Classical Sites says: "PRAETORIUM (Copăceni) Racovila, Vilcea, Romania. Mentioned by Tab. Peut. at ca. 11 milia passum from Arutela and 9 milia passum from Pons Vetus, an important military camp of the limes Alutanus in the Olt gorge, defended by two castra identified by excavations. The camp, preserved only on the W side, was 64 m in length and provided with buttresses on the inside. Two inscriptions were affixed to the W gate. One, dating from 138, states that the builders of the camp were the soldiers of the numerus burgariorum et veredariorum Daciae inferioris, on the order of the procurator Tit. Fl. Constans. The other mentions that the same numerus, on the order of the procurator Aquila Fidus, in A.D. 140, enlarged the camp, which it reinforced with towers and a high vallum. A deposit of ashes from a fire separates the two periods of the construction of the camp. A milliarium of Maximinus Thrax was placed near the gate. East of the camp was the civil settlement. Partial excavations have uncovered some military baths. The waters of the Olt apparently destroyed the camp ca. 220-30 and the camp of Racoviţa was built ca. 500 m farther N. It was quadrilateral (101.10 x 112.41 m), equipped with four gates, and has guard towers at the corners; inside was a horreum, a praetorium, and a schola (?). The paucity of the archaeological remains proves that it was occupied for only a short time, during the last decades before the evacuation of Dacia. The two camps were responsible for guarding the Titeşti depression and assuring the postal service and transportation in the Olt Valley." The real picture of the word is thus more complicated and could be discussed. Here is the dictionary entry in Lewis-Short:

Here is a listing of the occurences of the Latin word praetorium and homonyms in the Perseus library.

The word mistranslated "thieves" here is λῃσταί. Liddell-Scott gives, "lêist-ês , ou, ho, Ion. lêïstês , Dor. laistês , ( [lêïs, lêïzomai] ) robber, pirate, E.Alc.766, X. Cyr.2.4.23, etc.; opp. kleptês, Pl.R.351c; esp. by sea, buccaneer, later peiratês, And.1.138, etc.; lêistou bion zên Pl.Grg.507e ; lêïstês katestêkee Karchêdoniôn he began a course of piracies upon them, Hdt.6.17, cf. Th.1.5, 8, 6.4; hoi l. hautous poristas kalousin Arist.Rh.1405a25 ; of irregular troops, IG12(2).526 (Eresos)." Karl Feyerabend defines the term as "robber, priate, free-booter." These two crucified are no pickpockets or midnight burglars in the Greek text, but rather highwaymen or brigands, a constant problem for travelers in the ancient world.

What was the charge against them? It could have been just the fact of assaulting people as a robber, perhaps murder simply as a robber. But Mark 15:7 makes the now-mysterious allusion, "A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising." What uprising? Did the audience know what is being mentioned here? Brigands were, at the time, a leading cause of insurrection.

As you point out, the two robbers could not have been convicted along with Jesus by the Sanhedrin according to rabbinic law, yet there they are being crucified along with Jesus. A reasonable conclusion is that the earlier story has all three being convicted on Roman authority, and thus together suffering the Roman extreme penalty (as Tacitus puts it) of death on a cross.

The problem it creates for scholars is that "John"--which is to say, the redactor of the fourth gospel (in Jn 19:34, cf. the symbolic "water and blood" in 1 Jn 5:6,8)--invented the blood and water issuing from the side thing (on the redactor, see Bultmann The Gospel according to John and Haenchen John 2.195; on the implausibility of the scene and evidence for invention, see Brown The Gospel according to John 2.946-948).

The Greek evidence for the sentence between Matthew 27 vv. 49 and 50 is "א B C L 1010". It is indeed the oldest manuscript evidence for the passage in Matthew, being in two Bibles in the fourth century, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The sentence is missing from Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Bezae (D)--both assigned to the fifth century, predated by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus among the codices--as well as from the Matthean 074 (housed in Kiev) and other uncials. It is not quoted by any writers quoting Matthew before around 390, when it is quoted by John Chrysostom according to Severus. Only the Syriac and Ethiopic versions reproduce it--notably not the Coptic nor the Latin. Our resident judge may wish to know that it is absent in the Peshitta. It is still found as late as the twelfth century in miniscule 1010. If it was inserted, then it was inserted in a place where it could fit the context, which happened to be before the death of Jesus, with the cue of the subsequently well-known John 19:34. Evangelists do contradict each other, but redactors of evangelists also contradict the texts.

Origen opens his work Contra Celsum by pointing out that Jesus gave no answer before his accusers, letting his conduct speak for itself, yet that Origen will go on to write eight books for the sake of Ambrosius. Origen says explicitly, "Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect." This very episode may have been in the mind of Celsus when he wrote: "After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections." (Book II, Chapter XXVII) Why threefold and fourfold? The only obvious answer is: the Synoptics and the Four Gospels.

best,
Peter Kirby

JoeWallack

JW:
"The Greek word that has been translated above as “common hall” should be translated as “praetorium”, which was the official residence of a Roman governor. Every other major translation uses “praetorium”. KJV has deceptively mistranslated to try and hide the error that there was no praetorium in Jerusalem. Everyone agrees that the official residence of Pilate was in Caesarea and no known author outside of the Christian Bible, such as Josephus or Philo, ever refers to a praetorium in Jerusalem for this time period."


Peter Simon Kirby says:
"The word in Greek (πραιτώριον), which Perseus tells me is not found in Josephus at all, is clearly just a loaner from the Latin Praetorium, as you know. The "official residence" of a Roman governor is certainly one use of the word, but that may not be its entire scope (not even to belabor whether a prefect of Judea could be said to have an "official residence" both in Caesarea and also in Jerusalem, where he regurlarly quartered on holidays and did political business, and I don't suppose they put him up at the inn).

Harry Thurston Peck writes in Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities: "Praetorium. The headquarters in the Roman camp; a wide space, on which stood the general's tent, the altar of the camp, the augurale, and the tribunal. (See Castra.) In the provinces this name was given to the official residence of the governor (Verr. iv. 28, 65) and to any large country-house (Calig. 37)." The Princeton Encylcopedia of Classical Sites says: "PRAETORIUM (Copăceni) Racovila, Vilcea, Romania. Mentioned by Tab. Peut. at ca. 11 milia passum from Arutela and 9 milia passum from Pons Vetus, an important military camp of the limes Alutanus in the Olt gorge, defended by two castra identified by excavations. The camp, preserved only on the W side, was 64 m in length and provided with buttresses on the inside. Two inscriptions were affixed to the W gate. One, dating from 138, states that the builders of the camp were the soldiers of the numerus burgariorum et veredariorum Daciae inferioris, on the order of the procurator Tit. Fl. Constans. The other mentions that the same numerus, on the order of the procurator Aquila Fidus, in A.D. 140, enlarged the camp, which it reinforced with towers and a high vallum. A deposit of ashes from a fire separates the two periods of the construction of the camp. A milliarium of Maximinus Thrax was placed near the gate. East of the camp was the civil settlement. Partial excavations have uncovered some military baths. The waters of the Olt apparently destroyed the camp ca. 220-30 and the camp of Racoviţa was built ca. 500 m farther N. It was quadrilateral (101.10 x 112.41 m), equipped with four gates, and has guard towers at the corners; inside was a horreum, a praetorium, and a schola (?). The paucity of the archaeological remains proves that it was occupied for only a short time, during the last decades before the evacuation of Dacia. The two camps were responsible for guarding the Titeşti depression and assuring the postal service and transportation in the Olt Valley." The real picture of the word is thus more complicated and could be discussed. Here is the dictionary entry in Lewis-Short:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

praetōrĭum , ii, n. [praetor] .

I. A general's tent, Liv. 10, 33: dictatoris, id. 7, 12 : imperatoris Aequorum, id. 3, 25 ; Caes. B. C. 1, 76.--

B. Transf.

1. A council of war (because held in the general's tent): praetorio dimisso, Liv. 30, 5 ; 37, 5: missum, id. 21, 54, 3 .--

2. The official residence of the governor in a province, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 28, § 65: curritur ad praetorium, id. ib. 2, 5, 35 , § 92; Vulg. Matt. 27, 27.--

3. A palace (post-Aug.): sedet ad praetoria regis, Juv. 10, 161 : Herodis, Vulg. Act. 23, 35 ; id. Phil. 1, 13.--

4. In gen., a magnificent building, a splendid country-seat (post-Aug.): ampla et operosa praetoria, Suet. Aug. 72 : in exstructionibus praetoriorum atque villarum, id. Calig. 37 ; id. Tib. 39: alternas servant praetoria ripas, Stat. S. 1, 3, 25 ; Juv. 1, 75; Dig. 31, 1, 35; 50, 16, 198.--

5. Of other dwelling - places, the cell of the queen-bee: et circa regem atque ipsa ad praetoria, densae Miscentur, Verg. G. 4, 75 . --Of Diogenes's tub: utcumque sol se inclinaverat, Diogenis simul praetorium vertebatur, Hier. adv. Jovin. 2, 14 .--

II. The imperial body - guard, the guards, whose commander was called praefectus praetorio or praetorii: in praetorium accepti, Tac. H. 4, 26 fin. : meruit in praetorio Augusti centurio, Plin. 7, 20, 19, § 82 : militare in praetorio, id. 25, 2, 6, § 17 : ascriptis veteranis e praetorio, Suet. Ner. 9 : praetorii praefectus, Tac. H. 1, 19 .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a listing of the occurences of the Latin word praetorium and homonyms in the Perseus library."


JW:
Mr. Kirby, first let me say that after spending a lot of time at Theologyweb lately arguing about errors in the Christian Bible it's a pleasure to receive a response from someone who is primarily interested in determining whether or not there is an error. At Theologyweb I always feel like Michael Palin in the classic Monty Python sketch where he goes into John Cleese's Office of Argument but instead of Argument receives Contradiction:

"An Argument is an intellectual process of connecting supporting statements designed to achieve a definite proposition."

"No it's not."

"Yes it is."

"No it's not".

My post here merely referred to the use of Praetorium by "Matthew" as a "difficulty" and even Raymond Brown's related discussion says that such use may have reflected the imagination of the evangelist rather than history. My official 1001 error list does list this as an error though. My criteria for error is the same criteria that most people would use in any area outside of religion, a majority of the available evidence. Therefore, if I conclude that error is probable I will claim error even if there is a possible explanation (even a reasonably possible explanation). My first question to you is do you think it probable that "Matthew" made an error in his use of "praetorium" and possible that he didn't? If your answer is "yes" than based on my criteria for error I have nothing to argue with you about.

I'll concede that sometimes a general lack of evidence creates sufficient uncertainty to overcome a conclusion based on the majority of available evidence. The best parallel example to look for here would be a non Biblical author referring to Pilate's Praetorium in Jerusalem. Admittedly, trying to find an extant ancient author who would have had the opportunity for such a description is about as easy as trying to find a black, Jewish, Buddhist in Couer D'Alone Idaho. In my opinion though sufficient evidence exists that "Matthew's" use of Praetorium would have been considered an error by the authors of "Matthew's" time:

1) "The official residence of the governor in a province", which we all agree was Caesarea for Pilate, is closer to the derivation of Praetorium than "palace" which is the alternative I believe you are arguing.

2) All the Lexicons I've seen put "The official residence of the governor in a province" above "palace" indicating a more common meaning. I'll concede that sometimes placement in Lexicons is based more on tradition than frequency.

3) If you want to describe the location of a governor doing official business that was not in the official residence use of the word "Praetorium" is going to be equivocal as the meaning of "palace" conflicts with the more common use of "the official residence". A reader, say "Matthew's" readers, wouldn't be sure if the word referred to the official residence or just a palace. This is why I don't believe there is any example of a contemporary to "Matthew" author using "praetorium" to mean "palace" in describing a governor doing official business who would have an official residence who was not at their official residence. I believe this is also why:

4) Liddell and Bauer both classify 27:27 as "the official residence".

5) Church Tradition before the 12th century has no coherent tradition of where the hell this Praetorium was.

6) It's easy to imagine that "Matthew" wanted his readers to think this was "the official residence" of Pilate to maximize the dramatic effect. (This may be a stretch. Let me know if I'm starting to sound like JP Holding on this one).

I look forward to your response.


Joseph

PALACE, n.
A fine and costly residence, particularly that of a great official. The residence of a high dignitary of the Christian Church is called a palace; that of the Founder of his religion was known as a field, or wayside. There is progress.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

JoeWallack

JW:
"#133

Matthew 27: (KJV)

38 “Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.”

Stealing was not a capital offense under Roman law. Also, according to the rules of the Sanhedrin only one person could be judged per session. As Shaggy would say, “Yikes!”."


Peter Kirby:
"The word mistranslated "thieves" here is λῃσταί. Liddell-Scott gives, "lêist-ês , ou, ho, Ion. lêïstês , Dor. laistês , ( [lêïs, lêïzomai] ) robber, pirate, E.Alc.766, X. Cyr.2.4.23, etc.; opp. kleptês, Pl.R.351c; esp. by sea, buccaneer, later peiratês, And.1.138, etc.; lêistou bion zên Pl.Grg.507e ; lêïstês katestêkee Karchêdoniôn he began a course of piracies upon them, Hdt.6.17, cf. Th.1.5, 8, 6.4; hoi l. hautous poristas kalousin Arist.Rh.1405a25 ; of irregular troops, IG12(2).526 (Eresos)." Karl Feyerabend defines the term as "robber, priate, free-booter." These two crucified are no pickpockets or midnight burglars in the Greek text, but rather highwaymen or brigands, a constant problem for travelers in the ancient world.

What was the charge against them? It could have been just the fact of assaulting people as a robber, perhaps murder simply as a robber. But Mark 15:7 makes the now-mysterious allusion, "A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising." What uprising? Did the audience know what is being mentioned here? Brigands were, at the time, a leading cause of insurrection.

As you point out, the two robbers could not have been convicted along with Jesus by the Sanhedrin according to rabbinic law, yet there they are being crucified along with Jesus. A reasonable conclusion is that the earlier story has all three being convicted on Roman authority, and thus together suffering the Roman extreme penalty (as Tacitus puts it) of death on a cross."


JW:
Well thanks a lot Peter. Now I have to change my copywrite from "1001 Errors In The Christian Bible" to "1000 Errors In The Christian Bible". But seriously folktales, thanks for the feedback. I was at error #133 about three years ago and after I read your swell post I remembered that someone else had pointed out the thieve/bandit issue previously. My initial research was inadequate as I can see now that being a bandit was not only a capital offense under Roman Law (unless you were also a significant contributor to a Senatorial PAC) but was specifically punishable by crucifixion (now I AM saying "yikes!"). I'll change my official 1001 list accordingly.

On the other hand I think I Am still on terrier firmi with the claim that "Matthew's" presentation of three people being executed at the same time is at odds with Jewish Law of the time (Yes, I am expanding the definition of "judged" here). I think the applicable Mishnah Sanhedrin:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_0.html

gives a sufficient implication through souly providing an example of one defendant in the entire judicial process (accusation through execution) and exaggerated concern for giving the defendant every possible opportunity for acquittal that only one condemned could be executed at a time.

I concede that there is significant uncertainty as to whether "The Jews" of the time would have followed all the Rules but if I have to choose between Rabbinical sources and Christian sources regarding Rabbinical Law I think I'll go with the Rabbinical sources for the time being (I think it likely that "The Jews" of Jerusalem in general would have followed Trial Law as described in the Mishnah). Regarding the bandits, of course I think the basic story is a fictional creation written to claim prophecy fulfillment (for all I know the original author made no attempt to hide this which explains why subsequent Christianity decided that the original author was not the original author) but accepting the Christian assumption that it was historical I think it likely that the bandits were tried by the Sanhedrin since as you know Rome had a limited presence in Jerusalem (I think this was intentional) while I believe that "The Jews" had a quite significant presence there. Under Jewish Law having all three executed together would violate their rights.

It's definitely possible that Pilate may have had little/no concern for Jewish Law at times and for all I know during the Trial he may have said to his translator "Tell the crowd that the next person who complains will be #4". I certainly think you can make a good defense against this claimed error as you have done but as a Skeptic I have no problem claiming trivial/less clear errors as my primary objective is not to convince Fundamentalists that there are errors in the CB but to determine if there are errors in the CB.

Peter, while I have you on the line can you explain to me why you gave up Christianity? I'm doing a survey. I seem to remember you saying it wasn't all the errors that were pointed out to you but a doctrine that you came to conclude was indefensible.


Joseph

CLERGYMAN, n.
A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/