Cito di Pense wrote:Oh, you could be right, but you also sound suspiciously like the people who say you can't understand the Bible except as a whole, which is a species of apologetics. [...] When I want a thumbnail analysis of an historical problem having to do with biblical figures, I'll listen to people who sound like historians rather than to people who sound like apologists, thanks so much.

If you say, if you say.

This is walking the border of ad hom territory, so there's not much more to say. Beside asking what you expect someone who "discourse like [a] historian" to sound like. What substantive elements must a post contain to qualify?

I have no fucking clue what a 'comprehensive hypothesis' is supposed to mean. The hypothesis that entertains all the evidence? That's a pipe dream. Maybe you mean a 'comprehensive analysis'.

I'd've thought "comprehensive hypothesis" was self-explanatory, but apparently not. A hypothesis that assesses all the relevant evidence and avoids presupposed conclusions. If you think this takes too long, you're under no obligation to provide one. Just don't expect any supposedly paradigm-busting claims to stand up in its absence.

spin wrote:
Anybody who knew something about Roman magistracy would understand the implication of this statement. This particular procurator may have been trying to take upon himself praetorial powers, ie the minimum powers then for a proconsul, someone in charge of a province. He obviously wasn't in charge of a province because he didn't have the magisterial power to do so. You claimed in your folly that Tacitus 'always uses "procurator" for that [provincial ruler].' This passage shows you are wrong. He shows you that the procurator concerned is certainly not the provincial ruler.

You've got this backwards: Tim's claim is not that Tacitus only used procurator as a title for a provincial governor, but that he only used this title for the governor of the smaller Imperial provinces that were governed first by prefects and then procurators. The person referenced was the procurator of Asia, a large Senatorial province which was always governed by a proconsul - and hence not relevant.

Byron wrote:
I'd've thought "comprehensive hypothesis" was self-explanatory, but apparently not. A hypothesis that assesses all the relevant evidence and avoids presupposed conclusions. If you think this takes too long, you're under no obligation to provide one. Just don't expect any supposedly paradigm-busting claims to stand up in its absence.

I see. You're so wrapped up in making a positivist case, you're projecting that onto me now. Congratulations. This is what I mean by historians who talk like apologists.

Please tell me what paradigm-busting claims are being made other than to question the whole 'consensus' thing.

Paradigm-busting claims? In skepticism? Wow, man, these must be desperate times.

All the relevant evidence, eh? That's a tall order, if you actually want to make a list, or something.

Where's the comprehensive case that considers all the relevant evidence and avoids presupposed conclusions? I'll tell you one thing; it's not located in skepticism.

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:
Anybody who knew something about Roman magistracy would understand the implication of this statement. This particular procurator may have been trying to take upon himself praetorial powers, ie the minimum powers then for a proconsul, someone in charge of a province. He obviously wasn't in charge of a province because he didn't have the magisterial power to do so. You claimed in your folly that Tacitus 'always uses "procurator" for that [provincial ruler].' This passage shows you are wrong. He shows you that the procurator concerned is certainly not the provincial ruler.

You've got this backwards: Tim's claim is not that Tacitus only used procurator as a title for a provincial governor, but that he only used this title for the governor of the smaller Imperial provinces that were governed first by prefects and then procurators.

Here's what TimONeill says:

TimONeill wrote:Try this "dysphemic"/"spin": do a search through the uses of the words "praefectus" and "procurator" in the Annals. You'll find lots of mentions of the occasional "praefectum urbis" or of "praefecti castra" but he never uses the word to refer to a provincial ruler. He always uses "procurator" for that.

Who's right about what he said, him or you?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Byron wrote:A historian whose chops aren't roasted doesn't build a case on one facet of the evidence. They go for a comprehensive hypothesis. The quibbling over Tacitus' use of titles must be combined with other aspects, such as the motive of this alleged Christian forger and textual analysis of the Latin. If the other components are lacking, then the use of one title doesn't sway it.

Oh, you could be right, but you also sound suspiciously like the people who say you can't understand the Bible except as a whole, which is a species of apologetics. I have no fucking clue what a 'comprehensive hypothesis' is supposed to mean. The hypothesis that entertains all the evidence? That's a pipe dream. Maybe you mean a 'comprehensive analysis'. One thing is pretty obvious to me, and it is that if you try to consider all the evidence, you will be here all night and into tomorrow morning, and you will have your head shoved up your arse with irrelevant detail by the time you're done. If you pick and choose evidence before doing the analysis, you need some basis for doing so, and all of a sudden we are back again to the argument from authority of 'historical consensus'.

When I want a thumbnail analysis of an historical problem having to do with biblical figures, I'll listen to people who sound like historians rather than to people who sound like apologists, thanks so much.

Sure, you can say that quibbling over use of titles is quibbling, but you know, this whole fucking business is a quibble, come to that, and we've been there before, too. Bottom line for me: I read people here who discourse like historians, and I read people here who discourse like apologists. On the subject of 'historical personages', which ones should I listen to?

I'm only here to be a spectator to the posturing, do a little of my own, and try to glean something from the people who actually talk like historians.

Let me give you the Cliffs Notes then.

This debate always goes the same way; the Mythicists demand hard evidence, and the proponents of a historical Jesus demand credentials. Neither side of the debate is able to satisfy any real burden of proof, and the evidences for either proposal are so limited and ambiguous that your opinion is not likely to change when confronted by them.

Biblical scholarship is a joke. Always has been. Probably always will be. The field has less technical credibility than quite possibly any other field of study including art. As such, they're never much help.

The entire argument over extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, and therefore Jesus' historicity, boils down to the authenticity of Josephus' first passage about Jesus, the Testamonium. Anything else anybody tries talking about is basically a red herring.

Byron wrote:

dejuror wrote:HJ is completely FLAWED and is an INSULT to the HISTORIES of Tacitus.

Tacitus can call me outside any time he wants.

Are you referring to the forgery in Annals 15.44 with "Christus"?

HJers seem STUCK with the forgery in Annals 15.44 and do not want to KNOW that there is a lot more evidence that show Annals 15.44 is a forgery.

As I have said before the HJ proposal was probably put forward by an INCOMPETENT scholar who was NOT familiar with ALL the evidence from antiquity which would have destroyed HJ.

HJers propose that Bible Jesus was based on a human character and that he was EMBELLISHED.

Such a proposal is HORRIBLY FLAWED.

Even by just reading a SINGLE Jesus story, it should have OCCURRED to HJers that calling a Man a God in Judea is not an EMBELLISHMENT but BLASPHEMY, a Capital Crime subject to DEATH.

HJers do EVEN NOT seem to understand the basic of Jewish tradition.

Once Jesus was just a JEWISH MAN in Judea then the ENTIRE NT would have been regarded as BLASPHEMY and the authors would be SUBJECT to DEATH PENALTY.

The NT would have DESTROYED the JESUS CULT.

In the NT, as soon as Jesus claimed, in the presence of the Sanhedrin, that he was the son of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven, he was condemned with the penalty of death.

In the NT, as soon as Stephen claimed Jesus was standing on the right hand of God, he was IMMEDIATELY STONED to death.

In the NT, "Paul" was BEATEN and STONED almost to the point of DEATH for preaching that Jesus was the CREATOR and was RAISED from the dead to save mankind.

In "Church History" 2 James was STONED and CLUBBED to death for saying Jesus was SITTING on the right hand of God.

The HJ proposal is HORRIBLY FLAWED and EXPOSES INCOMPETENCE.

In Judea, it is NOT an Embellishment for a JEWISH MAN to ADMIT DIVINITY, HE will be DESTROYED.

The NT is in effect PRIMA FACIE evidence of the CAPITAL CRIME OF BLASPHEMY and its authors SUBJECT to the DEATH PENALTY.

If Jesus was just a Jewish MAN then the authors of the NT were CAPITAL CRIMINALS based on Jewish Laws.

Mishnah

7.4 These are they that are to be stoned: he that has connexion with his mother, his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast, and the woman that suffers connexion with a beast, and the blasphemer and the idolator, and he that offers any of his seed to Molech, and he that has a familiar spirit and a soothsayer, and he that profanes the Sabbath, and he tht curses his father or his mother, and he that has a connexion with a girl that is betrothed, and he that beguiles [others to commit idolatry], and he that leads [a whole town] astray, and the sorcerer and a stubborn and rebellious son.

There are NO EMBELLISHMENTS in the NT about the historical Jesus just CAPITAL CRIMES punishable by DEATH.

HJ is HORRIBLY FLAWED.

The JESUS story SIMPLY could NOT have been based on history but MYTH fables like the COMPETING MYTH fables of antiquity.

spin wrote:

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:
Anybody who knew something about Roman magistracy would understand the implication of this statement. This particular procurator may have been trying to take upon himself praetorial powers, ie the minimum powers then for a proconsul, someone in charge of a province. He obviously wasn't in charge of a province because he didn't have the magisterial power to do so. You claimed in your folly that Tacitus 'always uses "procurator" for that [provincial ruler].' This passage shows you are wrong. He shows you that the procurator concerned is certainly not the provincial ruler.

You've got this backwards: Tim's claim is not that Tacitus only used procurator as a title for a provincial governor, but that he only used this title for the governor of the smaller Imperial provinces that were governed first by prefects and then procurators.

Here's what TimONeill says:

TimONeill wrote:Try this "dysphemic"/"spin": do a search through the uses of the words "praefectus" and "procurator" in the Annals. You'll find lots of mentions of the occasional "praefectum urbis" or of "praefecti castra" but he never uses the word to refer to a provincial ruler. He always uses "procurator" for that.

Who's right about what he said, him or you?

There is no contradiction there, you have simply misinterpreted what he is saying. Read more closely.

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:

virphen wrote:

You've got this backwards: Tim's claim is not that Tacitus only used procurator as a title for a provincial governor, but that he only used this title for the governor of the smaller Imperial provinces that were governed first by prefects and then procurators.

Here's what TimONeill says:

TimONeill wrote:Try this "dysphemic"/"spin": do a search through the uses of the words "praefectus" and "procurator" in the Annals. You'll find lots of mentions of the occasional "praefectum urbis" or of "praefecti castra" but he never uses the word to refer to a provincial ruler. He always uses "procurator" for that.

Who's right about what he said, him or you?

There is no contradiction there, you have simply misinterpreted what he is saying. Read more closely.

I have.

"He always uses "procurator" for that [= a provincial ruler]."

The evidence I've already provided shows that a procurator was not the governor of a province.

If you also would like to claim that a procurator before the time of Claudius was the governor of a province, all you need do is cite a primary source and resolve the issue. Otherwise, we are left with the fact that procurators were given magisterial powers by Claudius and that's when the first freedmen and equestrians were sent into Judea to govern.

spin wrote:
I have.

"He always uses "procurator" for that [= a provincial ruler]."

The evidence I've already provided shows that a procurator was not the governor of a province.

If you also would like to claim that a procurator before the time of Claudius was the governor of a province, all you need do is cite a primary source and resolve the issue.

No, that is not his claim, and I make no such claim.

What Tim is clearly saying is that the only term Tacitus ever uses for the governor of a small Imperial province, i.e. those governed by an equestrian governor who was not pro praetore. i.e. there is no counter-example of such a governor being referred to by Tacitus using the title "Prefect".

I am not arguing this, only pointing out that you are misconstruing his post, now repeatedly despite having this pointed out to you several times.

Otherwise, we are left with the fact that procurators were given magisterial powers by Claudius and that's when the first freedmen and equestrians were sent into Judea to govern.

This is certainly not a fact - the prefects who governed these small Imperial provinces prior to the change (whether it was a change of title or more significant restructuring) were not Senators.

HJers have NOTHING for HJ but forgeries.

And the very forgeries DESTROYS HJ.

1. If Jesus was a Jewish man then the NT does NOT contain EMBELLISHMENTS but BLASPHEMY subject to the DEATH penalty.

2. If Jesus was a Jewish man and had a human father then he would not be worshiped as a God by Jews.

3. Up to the beginning of the 2nd century, Tacitus claimed the Jews had a MENTAL concept of God.

4. If Jesus was just a Jewish man with a known human father then the NT is a PACK of LIES.

6. If Jesus was just a Jewish man then his death had NO ability to save mankind from sin.

7. If Jesus was just a Jewish man then he could NOT have done anything to SAVE all mankind from sin. A sacrificial system was ALREADY in place in Jerusalem.

8. If Jesus was just a Jewish man then he could not be raised from the dead in three days.

9. If Jesus was just a Jewish man and preached and teach that he would be raised from the dead on the third day then it would have been known Jesus was a FRAUDSTER within 72 hr

10. Even in the NT, the disciples did not tell anyone Jesus resurrected until they SAW him ALIVE.

11. A actual human Jesus is NOT needed to say Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and God Incarnate.

HJ is COMPLETELY FLAWED.

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:
I have.

"He always uses "procurator" for that [= a provincial ruler]."

The evidence I've already provided shows that a procurator was not the governor of a province.

If you also would like to claim that a procurator before the time of Claudius was the governor of a province, all you need do is cite a primary source and resolve the issue.

No, that is not his claim, and I make no such claim.

What Tim is clearly saying is that the only term Tacitus ever uses for the governor of a small Imperial province, i.e. those governed by an equestrian governor who was not pro praetore. i.e. there is no counter-example of such a governor being referred to by Tacitus using the title "Prefect".

I am not arguing this, only pointing out that you are misconstruing his post, now repeatedly despite having this pointed out to you several times.

Otherwise, we are left with the fact that procurators were given magisterial powers by Claudius and that's when the first freedmen and equestrians were sent into Judea to govern.

This is certainly not a fact - the prefects who governed these small Imperial provinces prior to the change (whether it was a change of title or more significant restructuring) were not Senators.

Look, this sort of exchange seems pretty useless to me. I think you're just going to continue to misconstrue and you think I'm going to.

No-one talked about small imperial provinces except you, but then you obviously have some more knowledge in the subject that TimONeill. However, your problem is the assertion that before the times of Claudius procurators governed smaller provinces.

Now let TimONeill cook his own goose. If you want to continue to claim that procurators were anything more than purse holders prior to Claudius, I'll wait for your evidence. Attempts to conflate prefects with procurators before Claudius are merely ham-handed.

spin wrote:

TimONeill wrote:
So you ARE trying to claim that a, say, Eighth Century early Medieval scribe would have been writing precisely the same form of Latin as an early Second Century aristocrat? Is this seriously what you're claiming?

No, you are claiming that the Latin in the passage in question is specifically from the second century and you cannot demonstrate the fact.

Actually, "dsyphemic'/"spin", what I'm pointing out and what you keep prancing away from is the bleeding obvious fact that an early Medieval interpolator wouldn't be writing in Second Century Latin, let alone in distinctly Tacitean prose style. If there's one thing early Medieval scribes are renowned for it's their rather organic Latin - ie they used the language as it had continued to evolve and didn't preserve the language of the First two centuries AD that later Humanist scholars regarded as "good" Latin. See here for a summary of the orthographic and grammatical changes in bothLate Latin and the further ones in Medieval Latin.

To pretend some Eighth or Ninth Century interpolator was not only so brilliant as to avoid the kind of clumsily obvious interpolations we find in the TF but was also able to perfectly feign precisely the kind of distaste in his description of Christianity as as "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" that we'd expect of a Second Century senator is beyond credulity (for most of us, anyway). And this genius was able to do all this while at the same time not doing it in his Medieval Latin but the Latin of four or five centuries earlier AND at the same time imitate Tacitus' distinctive prose style. This monk was a wonder of his age indeed. When you startle the whole world of Tacitus studies with your earth-shaking paper demonstrating all this perhaps you will be regarded as a wonder as well. And winged monkeys might also fly hooting out of your arse.

Your first citation was of Annals IV.15. It shows nothing of the sort. It refers to a procurator, as I said.

You certainly are hard of reading. If you actually read the citation it included these words:

if he had taken upon himself the powers of a praetor and used military force, he had disregarded his instructions

Anybody who knew something about Roman magistracy would understand the implication of this statement. This particular procurator may have been trying to take upon himself praetorial powers, ie the minimum powers then for a proconsul, someone in charge of a province. He obviously wasn't in charge of a province because he didn't have the magisterial power to do so. You claimed in your folly that Tacitus 'always uses "procurator" for that [provincial ruler].' This passage shows you are wrong. He shows you that the procurator concerned is certainly not the provincial ruler.

Okay, because Asia was a Senatorial province and Captio was simply the guy in charge of the Emperor's res privata. That doesn't change the fact that he never uses "prefect" to refer to a provincial ruler, only to camp and city military officials. So, as Byron has noted as well, his use of the terminology doesn't support your weighty supposition. Then there's the argument of your fellow ahistoricist and Myther hero Richard Carrier:

"It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here."

Ooops. Better go argue with Dicky Carrier.

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:
I have.

"He always uses "procurator" for that [= a provincial ruler]."

The evidence I've already provided shows that a procurator was not the governor of a province.

If you also would like to claim that a procurator before the time of Claudius was the governor of a province, all you need do is cite a primary source and resolve the issue.

No, that is not his claim, and I make no such claim.

What Tim is clearly saying is that the only term Tacitus ever uses for the governor of a small Imperial province, i.e. those governed by an equestrian governor who was not pro praetore. i.e. there is no counter-example of such a governor being referred to by Tacitus using the title "Prefect".

Got it in one virphen.

David Deas wrote:The entire argument over extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, and therefore Jesus' historicity, boils down to the authenticity of Josephus' first passage about Jesus, the Testamonium. Anything else anybody tries talking about is basically a red herring.

Actually, given that we don't know where Tacitus got his information about Jesus from and that the TF is contaminated by at least some interpolation, the case actually usually boils down to the second of the Josephean references to Jesus and its relation to Galatians 1:19. These are the rocks on which the Myther/ahistoricist case founder.

TimONeill wrote:

spin wrote:

TimONeill wrote:
So you ARE trying to claim that a, say, Eighth Century early Medieval scribe would have been writing precisely the same form of Latin as an early Second Century aristocrat? Is this seriously what you're claiming?

No, you are claiming that the Latin in the passage in question is specifically from the second century and you cannot demonstrate the fact.

Actually, "dsyphemic'/"spin", what I'm pointing out and what you keep prancing away from is the bleeding obvious fact that an early Medieval interpolator wouldn't be writing in Second Century Latin, let alone in distinctly Tacitean prose style.

Like someone with his foot nailed to the ground you keep running around in circles avoiding the fact that you don't know what second century Latin is if it shat on you. Your value laden rubbish is your problem. Until you can demonstrate that the passage indeed reflects purely 2nd c. then you can't assume it. So demonstrate your point or stop your rot.

Wait for it folks. We're bound to see yet more subterfuge from our good old know-nothing bully boy.

TimONeill wrote:If there's one thing early Medieval scribes are renowned for it's their rather organic Latin - ie they used the language as it had continued to evolve and didn't preserve the language of the First two centuries AD that later Humanist scholars regarded as "good" Latin.

Still waiting.

TimONeill wrote:See here for a summary of the orthographic and grammatical changes in bothLate Latin and the further ones in Medieval Latin.

Well, what's 2nd c. Latin about the following?

"auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat"

TimONeill wrote:To pretend some Eighth or Ninth Century interpolator

You might have pulled "some Eighth or Ninth Century interpolator" out of your arse to build your usual fangless presuppositions, but why narrow the period when we have perhaps nine centuries to consider??

TimONeill wrote:[...Omitting mindless drivel based on whatever was passing along your neurons...]

Your first citation was of Annals IV.15. It shows nothing of the sort. It refers to a procurator, as I said.

You certainly are hard of reading. If you actually read the citation it included these words:

if he had taken upon himself the powers of a praetor and used military force, he had disregarded his instructions

Anybody who knew something about Roman magistracy would understand the implication of this statement. This particular procurator may have been trying to take upon himself praetorial powers, ie the minimum powers then for a proconsul, someone in charge of a province. He obviously wasn't in charge of a province because he didn't have the magisterial power to do so. You claimed in your folly that Tacitus 'always uses "procurator" for that [provincial ruler].' This passage shows you are wrong. He shows you that the procurator concerned is certainly not the provincial ruler.

Okay, because Asia was a Senatorial province and Captio was simply the guy in charge of the Emperor's res privata.

Great. We have a procurator who was certainly not a governor, suggesting procurators were not governors at the time.

TimONeill wrote:That doesn't change the fact that he never uses "prefect" to refer to a provincial ruler, only to camp and city military officials. So, as Byron has noted as well, his use of the terminology doesn't support your weighty supposition. Then there's the argument of your fellow ahistoricist and Myther hero Richard Carrier:

Gosh, "fellow ahistoricist and Myther hero"! I gather that means he's not one of your frocked friends.

TimONeill wrote:"It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here."

Ooops. Better go argue with Dicky Carrier.

This is funny: the myther basher is trying to defend his lack of knowledge by citing from a myther hero! That's bound to be impressive in a masochist kind of way. Now, who the fuck cares what Richard Carrier says here? You don't. You're just trying to make up for wont of knowledge. Citing him as your authority is both hypocritical and typical of your inability to provide evidence. Remember that notion, evidence? It's not the opinion of whichever name you fasten on to to make up for that lack of illumination. You were asked for evidence and you failed yet again.

Carrier is wrong in this.

Yes, Bullwinkle said it: nothing up your sleeve.

So,

1. we'll wait for you to demonstrate that the Latin in the Tacitus martyr story is restricted to late 1st early 2nd c. And
2. we'll wait for you to show that one procurator had government of a single province before the time of Claudius.

Come on, my bully boy. You've bashed mythers for your sport in this forum and its predecessor, making people here think you know more than those you vomit your spleen on. Show your wares. Let people know that behind that brutally ugly facade there is more than hollowness; there is actually a person who knows something, anything about the materials you've been faking for so long.

TimONeill wrote:

David Deas wrote:The entire argument over extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, and therefore Jesus' historicity, boils down to the authenticity of Josephus' first passage about Jesus, the Testamonium. Anything else anybody tries talking about is basically a red herring.

Actually, given that we don't know where Tacitus got his information about Jesus from and that the TF is contaminated by at least some interpolation, the case actually usually boils down to the second of the Josephean references to Jesus and its relation to Galatians 1:19. These are the rocks on which the Myther/ahistoricist case founder.

And the Historicist case. The eisegetical transformation of "James, the brother of the lord" into "James, the brother of Jesus". This post hoc reading of course is ancient, but still post hoc. Nothing in the christian testament to justify it.

TimONeill wrote:

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:
I have.

"He always uses "procurator" for that [= a provincial ruler]."

The evidence I've already provided shows that a procurator was not the governor of a province.

If you also would like to claim that a procurator before the time of Claudius was the governor of a province, all you need do is cite a primary source and resolve the issue.

No, that is not his claim, and I make no such claim.

What Tim is clearly saying is that the only term Tacitus ever uses for the governor of a small Imperial province, i.e. those governed by an equestrian governor who was not pro praetore. i.e. there is no counter-example of such a governor being referred to by Tacitus using the title "Prefect".

Got it in one virphen.

Yeah, virphen, you managed to cover that ugly butt up until he came back to uncover it again when he opened his mouth.

spin wrote:

TimONeill wrote:To pretend some Eighth or Ninth Century interpolator

You might have pulled "some Eighth or Ninth Century interpolator" out of your arse to build your usual fangless presuppositions, but why narrow the period when we have perhaps nine centuries to consider??

Oh, okay. Since the onus is on the claimant, time for you to narrow things down for us. Perhaps you could consult the latest draft of the ground breaking paper you're writing on this, the one that will reveal your amazing discovery to the dazzled world of Classical scholarship, and answer a few more questions you keep avoiding. You know - ones like "When was this interpolated?" "By whom?" and "To what possible purpose?"

Great. We have a procurator who was certainly not a governor, suggesting procurators were not governors at the time.

As several have already noted, what we don't have and what you need to produce is Tacitus mentioning a Prefect who is a provincial governor like Pilate. Until you do, your whole argument fails. Funny how you keep avoiding that issue as well.

spin wrote:
Yeah, virphen, you managed to cover that ugly butt up until he came back to uncover it again when he opened his mouth.

If you want to troll someone, please leave me out of it.

virphen wrote:

spin wrote:
Yeah, virphen, you managed to cover that ugly butt up until he came back to uncover it again when he opened his mouth.

If you want to troll someone, please leave me out of it.

That was not my intention, virphen. There is no reason to feel attacked by me in any sense here. You're certainly not the butt of this joke.