Ben C Smith

I should add that Richard Carrier has stated:

Doherty repeats Wells' mistaken claim that "procurator...was the title of [Pilate's] post in Tacitus' day, but in the reign of Tiberius such governors were called prefect" (p. 202). A few years ago, correspondence with Wells on this point inspired me to thoroughly investigate this claim, and my findings will eventually be published. But in short, this sentence is entirely wrong. 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.

I myself am not yet in a position to properly evaluate this claim.

Ben.

Malachi151

Tacitus wrote it in 109 CE. End of story, it is what it is. Being what it is, it isn't "proof" of the existence of Jesus.

Peter Kirby

Hi Ben,

This is very interesting to me!

I started my search of the issue by looking in Josephus's Antiquities.

In 19.9.2, Cuspins Fadus was sent to be procurator of Judea by Claudius. This was after the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 CE.

In 18.2.2, Coponius "who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea." At this time Judea had been added to the province of Syria. This was around 6 CE.

In 18.2.2 also, Coponius is succeeded by Annius Rufus and then "Valerius Gratus [was sent] to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus."

In 18.3.1, Pilate is termed "the procurator of Judea."

Of Tiberius, Josephus says in 18.6.5, "although he was emperor twenty-two years, he sent in all but two procurators to govern the nation of the Jews, Gratus, and his successor in the government, Pilate."

In 18.6.10, Caius "sent Marullus to be procurator of Judea."

If Josephus is any indication... Judea was governed by a Roman procurator from 6 CE to 41 CE, and again from 44 CE until the revolt. Before that it was governed by Herod the Great, and from 41 to 44 by Herod Agrippa. There is no indication that the governing office was termed prefect before Herod Agrippa and procurator after, at least in Josephus.

Quoted from Stephen C. Carlson, "Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 299, also gets Pilate's title wrong too, calling him an ἐπίτροπος of Judea, the Greek equivalent to procurator. (The Greek equivalent of praefectus was ἔπαρχος.)"

The other major piece of evidence is the inscription found at Caesarea Maritima in 1961 that seems to name the emperor Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, and the phrase 'prefect of Judea'.

I would suggest that Carrier is right in that it is both a prefecture and a procuratorship. The terms were not interchangeable, but someone appointed by the emperor to look after a province could be both. However, I would caution that this is an interpretation of the evidence, an inference, and I have not found an ancient source stating that someone could be both prefect and procurator in a region at the same time. (It seems that Egypt might be such a case, but then it's a rather special case as provinces go anyway.)

How did the Wellsian rumor about prefects/procurators get started? I noticed it on the livius.org site as well.

Ben C Smith

When I brought this up before (and the Greek of that Coponius quote actually has a procurator taking over a prefecture), spin responded that we cannot say anything about the Latin terms praefectus and procurator based on the Greek terms used in various sources. His exact words:

It would be interesting to see this same interchangeability in Latin. I wonder if Carrier has any Latin examples.

Not sure.

Ben.

the_cave

This thread's got some legs...

Is it possible that Pilate *was* a procurator (and also a prefect), and yet...the Tacitean passage is *still* inauthentic?

How about this: *if* the passage is authentic (as Malachi151 thinks it is) then why isn't Nero's persecution associated with the fire in Christian literature until centuries later?

Ben C Smith

Logically, yes. If Pilate was actually a procurator (and also a prefect), all this does is to remove one possible objection to authenticity; other objections may remain.

(Please note that, as plausible as a double office may be, I still tend to regard the procurator thing as a Tacitean mistake; this may simply be because hard epigraphic evidence works a kind of charm on me, but so be it. I would not mind being proven wrong, and the quickest way to do that would be to find straightforward Latin evidence of the double office.)

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

[Cue Pete and his hobby horse]

What makes you think Christians would be aware of Tacitus?

Jeffrey

the_cave

Oh dear...

I've been avoiding that whole situation, but I can say that (based on my admittedly limited knowledge) I have a very hard time imagining that Tertullian had not read Tacitus on the subject.

Am I missing some relevant threads?

spin

My follow-up to Ben C.'s summary here shows that the case contains nothing tangible. The confusion is created and what follows is Ben C. advocating to shift the burden, ie one can assume Tacitus wrong and proof to the contrary is needed.


spin

Solitary Man

Speaking unfamiliarly with Tertullian's knowledge of Tacitus, it is, however, not uncommon for ancient authors to be unaware of the latest scholarship in the ancient world. Much has been done trying to figure out if Seneca, for example, knew Phaedro, or if Cicero was aware of this or that poet minor poet. Who knew Lucretius, who knew Persius? It's difficult for people to remember that the internet had not been invented yet.