the_cave

Spin--I did read it. But read the edit.

spin

I was editing to respond to your edit while you were writing this.


spin

the_cave

Not that I don't take Tektonics.org with a grain of salt, but here is a response from them on the subject:

"What evidence is there for the easy interchange of these terms? Meier notes [Meie.MarJ, 100] that in a "backwater province" like Judea, there was probably not much difference between the two roles. This assertion is backed up by literary evidence. Philo and Josephus were not consistent in the usage of the terms either: Josephus calls Pilate a "procurator" in Antiquities 18.5.6, the story about Pilate bringing images into Jerusalem. (It has not been suggested, but we may wonder if, in a backwater like Judea, Pilate may have held both titles!)....(For what it is worth, the Secular Web's Richard Carrier has now stated: "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."
....The second reason for this use of terminology may be deliberate anachronizing on Tacitus' part. Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 111] note that Tacitus often uses "archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary" and also "avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms." They do not cite the prefect/procurator issue specifically, but it is worth asking, in light of this comment, if the usage might not have been simply part of Tacitus' normal practice. (In fact, Harris [Harr.GosP5, 349] does indeed suggest a conscious [or unconscious] anachronizing.)"

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

So once again, we are faced with ambiguity.

Yes, yes, I'm now familiar with the criticisms; the next writer is quite late. But the story itself was at least extant by the time of Tertullian.

spin

So, first the apologist has to theorise that Tacitus has some sort of unexplained attitude toward this state appointed officer, and when that doesn't convince other apologists, like this:

we get another way-out theory that Tacitus is deliberately archaizing, well, you know that after 41 Judaea became a province in its own right and a procurator was a higher position than a prefect, so either you or this apologist hasn't got the story straight.

If you look through Tacitus's works he seems to use these terms appropriately. Don't you think your sources should give specific examples where they think he got it wrong in order to be taken seriously?

No way. You have raving apologists not dealing with the issue.

What on earth makes you think it was at least extant by the time of Tertullian who shows no knowledge of it?

I'll have another question for you when you deal reasonably with the Pilate's position properly and you stop relying on potted answers.


spin

the_cave

They provide evidence that Josephus got it wrong, so it's at least possible in principle. And what if he only got it wrong once?

One of whom appears to be Richard Carrier.

"Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making profess then especially at Rome." --Tertullian, Apology, Chap. V. I found this today.

spin

Let's play "what if". Let's not play "Tacitus was using reputable sources for his histories".

That might show apologists haven't totally cornered the market on such mistakes.

The distinction is fairly clear: praefectus civitatium was a lower position than procurator, at least in the early principate, which is what interests us. Augustus needed this position to be able to use senators in the administration of provinces, so a produrator had senatorial rank, whereas a praefectus civitatium was only an equites. A praefectura was a subdivision of a province. The procurator controlled the province. Sometimes praefecturae were turned into provinces: that's what happened with Judaea in 41 CE. (Later the position of procurator seemed to lose its importance somewhat.)

That only means that Tertullian knew of the anti-Neronian tradition, though such an anti-xian persecution in Nero's day is extremely unlikely, ie that Christians were a group distinct enough from the Jews in 64 CE to warrant such attention. Well, it also indicates that Tacitus didn't mention the persecution, otherwise Tertullian would have cited Tacitus to support his claim, as he is not wont to use Tacitus, both in his Apology XVI and Ad Nationes Bk 2 12.


spin