Procurator and Prefect:
An examination of the Tacitus passage referencing the Christ, who was executed by procurator Pilate.
by Anthony Horvath, aka sntjohnny, at www.sntjohnny.com. Discuss at the forums.
Updated 2/12/05
|
|
The creation of this essay was prompted by an argument about Tacitus's passage in his Annals that talks about Christ. Since I have covered this argument before, it seemed like a really good idea to codify my views for future reference. I wouldn't want to have to do the work all over again. This is a very long document, and I expect in the future to organize it differently. It consists of five main parts: The Main Defense of Tacitus (this page), Overview of my philosophy of history, Discussion of whether or not Tacitus gained his information from contemporary Christians, A Full Catalog of every reference to 'procurator' and 'prefect' in all of the relevant ancient histories, and a summary catalog if the main references used in the main argument.
If you are not the sort that likes to read massive documents, I suggest you first read my seven main conclusions, and then scan the rest of the essay for my fuller defenses of those conclusions. Also, reading through the page where I list a summary of the relevant passages from ancient histories brought to bear is very likely of better initial use then reading the full catalog.
Use Ctrl-F to search for words in the full catalog, to try to find context, etc. As much as possible, though I have grown weary, I have tried to link to the actual source documents. Enjoy.
Menu of this Page
Context
The Charge
The Scope of the Essay
Sources
The Text in Question
Overview
Objections Handled in this Essay
Tangent: A quick defense of the Gospels.
Description of the Claudius 'procurator/prefect' Issue
The Formal Defense of the Tacitus Passage Begins
The Argument Continues: Caesar Augustus' Structure of
Government
Summing it up
Summary of Conclusions
(Is other Information Available?)
Net Conclusion
Other Pages:
My Philosophy of Historical Investigation
Refutation of Proposition that Tacitus learned
his material from contemporary Christians.
Summary Catalog
Full Catalog: Every reference to Procurator and
Prefect in Ancient Histories.
Context
The latest discussion of this passage is prompted by a simple debate about the existence of Christ. It is maintained by some that it cannot even be said that it is likely that Jesus existed, a position that I find to be absurd. This Tacitus reference represented the first of many arguments, meant to cumulative establish the reasonable likelihood that Jesus existed. The reader of this article should not think that this reference is my sole argument, or that I am arguing for anything other than the existence of Jesus.
In response to this passage, there have been a number of approaches by people who really, really, really don't want to allow it to serve as evidence of Christ's existence. We are not going to be able to cover them all. We will not, for example, respond to allegations that the Tacitus reference is actually a Christian interpolation centuries after Tacitus has alleged to have written. Instead, we will respond to a specific accusation that even if the passage is authentic, it still does not provide evidence for Christ's existence. I will counter that charge along a couple of lines in this essay.
One of the lines that I will not defend in this essay is the simple prima facie argument: Tacitus is generally quite reliable. What evidence is there to believe he was not reliable in this case? It is my position that one needs to actually bring to bear evidence to support such an attack, not mere speculation. However, I will not defind this in this essay. I mention it only to state my overall position that there is no evidence to justify knocking us off a prima facie acceptance of the reference. There is one particular challenge to the prima facie evidence that is derived from Tacitus' description of Pontius Pilate as a procurator, rather than a prefect, which it is believed he actually was. The argument is that this shows that Tacitus has erred, and perhaps more importantly, certainly did not utilize Roman sources. This last is important to some people because they have a ridiculously high standard relating to the idea of an 'independant source' for the historicity of Christ. Click here for my philosophy about that approach in general. Suffice it to say, though, that even if we could be certain that independant sources were likely used by Tacitus, skeptics would still denounce it's significance. Nonetheless, I believe that, in contrast to views that Pilate as procurator shows Tacitus is unreliable in this case, it actually shows the opposite. Thus, for skeptics who are actually reasonable, the point is worth investigation. Thus, my emphasis in this essay will be on this question.
I'm so glad that most sources these days is available online. In this particular instance, all of my sources are online. Below is a table of all the sources brought to bear to produce this essay. It is regrettable that not all of the sources that these folks used are online. In some cases, I did look for the underlying source- either a scholar or a primary source- but outside of merely identifying who it was, I failed to find their original content. However, if criticism of this essay warrants it, I may dig deeper.
Roman Histories- Primary Sources |
Links about Pontius Pilate |
Links from Various Sources |
|
| Tacitus- (the reference in dispute) | On Livius | Links about Prefects/Procurators
On Livius- |
On the Credibility of Josephus |
| Seutonius- | The Ecole Initiative | Pliny
and Trajan
Correspondence about Christians |
Wikipedia: |
| Josephus- | The Pilate Inscription | Jeff Lowder's Criticism of all sorts of crap, including this Tacitus reference | About.Atheism: |
| Philo -"Embassy to Gaius" | Josephus on Palestine's Government | Internet Ancient Sourcebook- Rome. | Overview of evidences of the historicity of Christ. |
| Dio Cassius | Coins minted by Pilate - Article | Livius: On Judea | |
| All the references to Josephus in secular sources |
From Perseus: Tacitus, The Annals Book XV (62-65 AD) 15.44
XLIV. Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
In this passage, we have Tacitus primarily trying to elaborate on an incident related to Nero and the firing of Rome. According to Tacitus, Nero attempts to deflect suspicion that he was the cause of the fire by accusing the Christians, a class apparently already 'hated for their abominations,' and so, we suppose a group ready to be made into a scapegoat. Tacitus appears to be only mildly interested in the Christians at all, but feels compelled to explain who these Christians are, in case his readers are unaware. Thus, he explains that Christians take their name from 'Christus.' And not just any 'Christus,' but one who was executed during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate, described here as a procurator. Tacitus correctly points out that this event took place in Judea, but that the 'mischievous superstition' would also break out in Rome, as well. Some textual variants say 'Chrestus' rather than 'Christus' but the context makes it quite clear who is referred to. That is to say, even if Tacitus had said 'Chrestus' we would know who he was speaking about. So, despite weak objections that this reference only documents the existence of Christians, the specific identification of 'Christus,' providing us with information about his death, during a specific time period, at the hands of a specific man, it is indisputable to the fair minded that this Tacitus reference also provides documentation of the existence of Christ, as well.
Objections handled in this essay:
Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Richard Carrier, and those 'free-thinkers' who mimic them to a tee, will argue that nonetheless, "we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus." The notion of 'independant confirmation' is nothing more than skeptical spin. By this standard, we would have to rip out as unreliable 95% of most ancient historical accounts, something I defend elsewhere. But Lowder makes an admission that I think skeptics who take their cues from skeptical scholars, primarily apart from their own research, should take note: "Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability." He says. So most of the battle is already over, since the challenge is based on an unrealistic and ridiculous standard of evidence that no one seriously applies to any other ancient historical claim. However, in theory, at least, if we can find some good reason to believe that Tacitus was using a source that was primary, relative to him, rather than a contemporary merely engaging in rumor mongering (like claims that Tacitus got his information from Pliny the Younger- an absurd notion since Pliny himself felt compelled to get his information from Trajan), then we will have allowed the reasonable skeptic positive basis for accepting this Tacitus reference as a tenable piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Since it is generally admitted that Tacitus was reliable, the burden of demonstration is on skeptics to show why we cannot take the passage on its face. They need to provide evidence, not inference (on this matter, a nice way to say 'speculation') that we cannot. Another thing that everyone admits is that Tacitus was a Senator who had access to the Imperial archives. Skeptics point out that having access is not the same as utilizing access, and they speculate that since Tacitus is not really concerned with Christians or Christ, he would not have had reason to do so here. But that is not an argument derived from evidence. That is an argument derived from thinking one can read Tacitus' mind. It is the burden of the skeptics to show why we should not suppose that Tacitus used any official records, or from the point of view of skeptics- more importantly, that Christian sources were not the primary sources, whether through Pliny or someone else.
In that vein, there is at least one thing in this Tacitus passage that can be attacked to provide evidence for such speculation. Namely, Tacitus' description of Pilate as a procurator, rather than a prefect. The finding of the Pilate Inscription had to have been a bitter-sweet pill for skeptics. For centuries, skeptics could argue that there was no 'independant confirmation' of the existence of Pilate. Our 'only' references to Pilate were in Josephus, Tacitus, Philo, and the writings of Christians. With archeological evidence of Pilate's existence in hand, the underlying view that Christians have been consumate liars from their very beginnings had to be re-thought. However, the find was a blessing in its own right. Contrary to the words of Josephus and Tacitus, who all describe Pilate as a 'procurator,' the Pilate Inscription described Pilate as a 'prefect.' The Inscription was not complete, but what could be read was: "Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judaea, . . . the Tiberieum . . . ."
This opened a door now to challenge the accuracy of the literary accounts of Pilate and Jesus and Christians that did not otherwise exist.
A quick word is in order, though, in defense of the Gospels.
On the page linked to above about the Pilate Inscription, the author says:
"In the first period of provincial rule, from 4 BCE to the outbreak of the First Revolt in 66 CE, officials of the equestrian order (the lower rank of governors) governed Palestine. They held the title prefect until King Agrippa assumed rule over Judaea. After his death in 44 and the reversion of Judaea to Roman rule, the governor held the title procurator. As applied to governors, this term, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title prefect. Indeed authors of the late first century often use the term procurator for the early governors--so in the New Testament and in Tacitus's and Josephus's works--but contemporary documents such as this famous inscription from Caesarea attest to the title prefect."
I have bolded the relevant portion, though we will return to this overall concept in due time. More precisely, the New Testament speaks of Pilate as a 'governor,' which is not incompatible with either the 'prefect' title or the 'procurator' title. This sentence implies that the New Testament makes the same 'error,' but in fact, the New Testament does not. There are even a couple of references (which I will not explore here) in the Gospels that seem to indicate that the authors knew that Pilate was a 'prefect.' Perhaps I am reading into the paragraph too much in this case.
But I certainly am not when I quote from the About.Atheism page on Pontius Pilate where it explicitly says:
"Pontius Pilate was prefect (not procurator, as the gospels say) of Judea during the reign of emperor Tiberius Caesar."
Once again, I bolded the relevant portion. This is an obvious cheap shot at the Gospels that is not substantiated at all by the evidence. The Gospels speak of Pilate as 'governor,' and do not use either 'procurator' or 'prefect,' which is certainly acceptable. I contacted the webmaster of that page, who was largely dismissive. It's possible that in the meantime he has corrected his error. I am only making a big deal of this because if it is going to be bandied about that the use of 'procurator' instead of 'prefect' diminishes the credibility of a source, a source- in this case, the New Testatment and the Gospels in particular- that does not repeat the same 'error' ought in theory increase in credibility. I know that is too much to ask out of the skeptical community, but I'm throwing it out there for the reasonable ones you occasionally find within it.
Description of the Claudius Procurator/Prefect Issue.
A reasonable presentation of this issue that does not pretend to attack Tacitus' credibility can be found on Ecole:
The primary responsibility of the governor of Judaea was military. This crucial aspect of the governor's task is emphasised by his title which, in the period before Agrippa I's reign ( 41- 44 CE) was prefect (praefectus/eparcos). The apointment of men to a military prefecture shows the determination of early emperors to hold on to a newly subjugated territory and to bring the native inhabitants firmly under Roman control. Under Claudius, however, prefect was changed to a civilian title, procurator (procurator/epitropos) which may have been designed to underscore the success of the pacification process. This change explains the confusion in the literary sources regarding the governor's title (for a full survey see Lémonon 45-48).
I had always argued that the use of 'procurator' rather than 'prefect' by Tacitus was nonetheless evidence of the use of Roman sourcing, but in research to defend that proposition, I took a look at this claim, which I had always taken for granted as true, and realized that I could not recall any corroboration from primary Roman sources. The ECOLE site that contains this information is well sourced, so I was a bit surprised that the reference was not given justifying the bolded claim above. I could not obtain the Lémonon source above, so I sent an email to the author of that site. She suggested these references, which I will attempt to procure. Based on the research that I have conducted, however, I do not expect to find corroboration for the specific claim above.
That deserves explanation. It is absolutely indisputable that Claudius sent a procurator to Judea after King Agrippa died. What is lacking is the notion that there was a specific and deliberate change away from the term 'prefect' and the new designation, 'procurator.' As near as I can tell, that argument is sustained only by pointing to the Pilate Inscription and inferring that all of the governors of Judea prior to Fadus (the name of the procurator Claudius sent) must have been 'prefects' as Pilate was. In fact, if you look at this chart on Livius about the government of Palestine, you will see that the webmaster of that site has assumed that those prior to Fadus really were prefects. I have reproduced those charts, here:
|
|
|
The links are all intact, and go right back to the Livius page. When we examine the rationale provided by the Livius authors as to why M. Ambibulus and Marcellus are considered 'prefects' the rationale is as follows (and you can follow the link in the chart above):
"Although Josephus does not mention Ambibulus' exact titles, we know from an inscription found at Caesarea that one of his successors, Pontius Pilate, was a prefect, so we can assume that Ambibulus was a prefect too."
And
"Josephus uses the word epimeletes, which is uncommon, and we are not certain whether Marcellus really had the powers of a prefect, or was merely a caretaker."
It is, of course, very good that in the case of Marcellus that they specifically mention that Josephus does not use the word 'prefect,' but rather another, but this does not prevent them from putting Marcellus in the category of 'prefect,' anyway. Here we have an explicit assumption being made about the titles of seven governors of Judea based on one single piece of archeology. We could just as easily argue that since Fadus was a procurator, those who preceded him were procurators, as well. But more importantly, at least for this moment, noting that Josephus used the word 'epimeletes' instead of 'prefect,' thus casting doubt on whether or not Marcellus was really a prefect, opens the door to examine a curious but powerful fact:
Josephus described everyone in that chart, except for Marcellus, as holding the 'office' of a procurator. Here is from Josephus's Antiquities, Book 18:
2. As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done. A little after which accident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor in that government; under whom Salome, the sister of king Herod, died, and left to Julia, [Caesar's wife,] Jamnia, all its toparchy, and Phasaelis in the plain, and Arehelais, where is a great plantation of palm trees, and their fruit is excellent in its kind. After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.
We then have Josephus' reference to Marcellus, referenced above already: "So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews." But later on, in chapter 6 of the same book, it says: "He also sent Marullus to be procurator of Judea."
So we are in a situation where we note with caution that we cannot be sure Marcellus was a prefect because Josephus uses a separate word, but somehow because of one archeological find, we can ignore Josephus's separate word, that is, the word 'procurator' to describe the rest of the people in the chart. As I said before, if the argument that Marcus Ambivius was more likely a 'prefect' because the Pilate Inscription says that Pilate- not Ambivius, or anyone else- was a prefect, then surely it could be argued quite the opposited, but this time with corroborating evidence, that they were all more likely procurators, since it is Josephus that is our primary source for telling us that Claudius sent Fadus as a procurator in the first place!
This might be a good time to substantiate my allegation that there is a significant difference between merely saying that Fadus was sent as a procurator and the claim that Claudius was re-titleling the whole office. Below is the passage out of Josephus' Antiquities, Book 19, Chapter 9:
2. Now Agrippa, the son of the deceased, was at Rome, and brought up with Claudius Caesar. And when Caesar was informed that Agrippa was dead, and that the inhabitants of Sebaste and Cesarea had abused him, he was sorry for the first news, and was displeased with the ingratitude of those cities. He was therefore disposed to send Agrippa, junior, away presently to succeed his father in the kingdom, and was willing to confirm him in it by his oath. But those freed-men and friends of his, who had the greatest authority with him, dissuaded him from it, and said that it was a dangerous experiment to permit so large a kingdom to come under the government of so very young a man, and one hardly yet arrived at years of discretion, who would not be able to take sufficient care of its administration; while the weight of a kingdom is heavy enough to a grown man. So Caesar thought what they said to be reasonable. Accordingly he sent Cuspins Fadus to be procurator of Judea, and of the entire kingdom, and paid that respect to the eceased as not to introduce Marcus, who had been at variance with him, into his kingdom. But he determined, in the first place, to send orders to Fadus, that he should chastise the inhabitants of Cesarca and Sebaste for those abuses they had offered to him that was deceased, and their madness towards his daughters that were still alive; and that he should remove that body of soldiers that were at Cesarea and Sebaste, with the five regiments, into Pontus, that they might do their military duty there; and that he should choose an equal number of soldiers out of the Roman legions that were in Syria, to supply their place. Yet were not those that had such orders actually removed; for by sending ambassadors to Claudius, they mollified him, and got leave to abide in Judea still; and these were the very men that became the source of very great calamities to the Jews in after-times, and sowed the seeds of that war which began under Florus; whence it was that when Vespasian had subdued the country, he removed them out of his province, as we shall relate hereafter.
I don't know about you, but I do not see anywhere in here where Claudius determines that the title 'prefect' has got to go and henceforth the governor of Judea will be a 'procurator.'
It would seem that the sole piece of evidence that anyone was a prefect, period, is the Pilate Inscription , which of course speaks only to Pontius Pilate. Now, I spent a fair amount of time researching this particular point, and I would be glad to corrected. I just don't expect to be. I went through all of the relevant primary historical sources searching for the terms 'prefect,' 'procurator,' 'Jews,' 'Judea,' and to a lesser extent, 'Syria.' I do not exaggerate when I say I went through them all. To prove it, I have cataloged every reference for you, my reader, to every use of the term 'prefect' and 'procurator' found in the sections of Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Plutarch, Livy, and Dio Cassius most likely to address Claudius' alleged decision to change the title of the governor of Judea from 'prefect' to procurator. That roughly means covering everything from Caesar Augustus to Nero. I also included all relevant material I could find in Josephus and Philo, and through in the New Testament material for good measure. Click here to view this complete listing.
However, a great deal of the material on that page is not necessarily relevant. So, for the course of my argumentation, you will probably want to start here, instead. I should note that I am restricted to the English translations and do not have access to the Latin. So, if there are examples I missed that are the result of translator error I'd be glad to add them. For example, I found at least one place where it seemed that maybe the word 'procurator' was translated as 'steward,' but I did not then turn around and do a full search for the term 'steward.' I do have a fading working knowledge of Greek, but alas that is of little help for most of this.
At this point, I want to draw off from the first page of the catalog some of the references that will be of use to me in making my argument. You see, in all of this, I have not lost sight of the fact that what I intend to argue is that the Tacitus reference to Pilate as a 'procurator' is not only sound, but suggests that Tacitus was probably pulling from some official source. That is an argument that I am building up to, but first I want to bring to the reader's attention the full extent of the data that I use to make that argument.
At last, the Defense of Tacitus's passage about Christ
The argument against utilizing the Tacitus passage can be found summarized neatly here:
"There are serious problems with Tacitus' account concerning the historicity of Jesus. Roman imperial documents would never refer to Jesus by his Christian title as 'Christ' and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This has led many scholars to conclude that the passage is a later Christian interpolation, inserted to provide validity to their fledgling movement. Unlike Josephus however, no real evidence exists to suggest literal textual tampering, so this has become a controversial position to take and others like Robertson, prefer to say that Tacitus was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians. Considering the inaccuracy in the passage, the latter is just as valid an explanation as the interpolation suggestion. Either way it puts us no closer to the historicity of Jesus because by the end of the first century the passion narrative, as told by Paul, was already well known."- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus"
We have three specific objections:
We will be focusing on #2, but it will help to make some brief mentions in regards to the other issues.
I think in response to #1 I feel compelled merely to ask James Still for access to his crystal ball, or perhaps the name of the psychic which gave him this information. These types of arguments can be found all over the place among modern scholars, but especially so on the question of Christian origins. This isn't even an argument he is making: it's rank assertion. You can't know what Roman imperial documents would or would not say in this regards. Call it an educated guess if you like, and even a reasonable one, if you like, but let's not confuse that as 'evidence.' As I said in this link here about my philosophy of history, there is a basic divide between those who constrain their views of history from evidence and those who do not respect such constraints. However, now that we've opened the door to talking about 'evidence,' surely the counter charge will be, "Well, what evidence do you have that Roman imperial documents would refer to Jesus by his Christian title of 'Christ'?" Notwithstanding the fact that I feel no compulsion to respond to baseless modern mind reading, I actually can muster some evidence. As it is not my focus, I discuss it HERE [that essay is not completed], instead.
The justification for #3 appears to be based partially on the mystical mind reading ability of modern scholars and the 'inaccuracy' in describing Pilate as a procurator, rather than a prefect. Having addressed #1 (NOT COMPLETED) and setting forth to argue against the bland dismissal of Tacitus because of this procurator/prefect business, if I am successful, in theory then the Tacitus passage should be considered strong evidence, though obviously just one piece of evidence. However, there are those who use either of these facets as a springboard to imagine how many different ways that Tacitus could have gained the information from 'contemporary Christians.' One can invent possibilities endlessly, but every now and then, you get some possibilities that you can at least test. This is one of those cases. I head off this notion of merely repeating a story by contemporary Christians here.
There will be some overlap in my argument against Christian 'rumor mongering' and my argument about Pilate's status helping us infer that Tacitus was not only correct in calling him a procurator, but that in doing so, he used Roman materials.
We must first establish some basic facts. I shall assert them, but not defend them, except to say if you dispute them you are a silly person. You can find plenty of evidence for them just by casual research of your own. Here they are:
What we have here is a twofer. Unlike Josephus, who had access to Roman records, Tacitus also had the benefit of having significant status and legal right to a great deal of primary source documentation. He will doubly be in a position to verify his information for his own purposes. This does not mean that he cannot make a mistake. What it does mean is that we are not in a position to casually dismiss his statements, because there is plenty of evidence to show that he did a pretty good job researching the facts. What is standing in the way of accepting his description of Pilate as a procurator? Only the Pilate Inscription. That's it. As we shall see, the literary record shows something quite differently.
The first thing that we need to do is determine if Tacitus had some sort of mental disorder by which he became too incompetent to tell the difference between a 'prefect' and a 'procurator.'
If you will casually check the full catalog of references to procurator and prefect, you will see right away that Tacitus is more than capable of utilizing the different words. Throughout both his Histories and his Annals, he makes frequent use of both terms. So the man is not oblivious to the difference.
The next question we will want to ask is whether or not he is careless with titles in general. My full catalog offers us some material to show that he is not, and I invite the reader to peruse Tacitus's full works to see if what I am offering as representative is not really representative:
"Every thing was then ordered according to the will of the soldiery. The Praetorians chose their own prefects. One was Plotius Firmus, who had once been in the ranks, had afterwards commanded the watch, and who, while Galba was yet alive, had embraced the cause of Otho. With him was associated Licinius Proculus, Otho's intimate friend, and consequently suspected of having encouraged his schemes. Flavius Sabinus they appointed prefect of the city, thus adopting Nero's choice, in whose reign he had held the same office, though many in choosing him had an eye to his brother Vespasian. A demand was then made, that the fees for furloughs usually paid to the centurions should be abolished. These the common soldiers paid as a kind of annual tribute. A fourth part of every company might be scattered on furlough, or even loiter about the camp, provided that they paid the fees to the centurions. No one cared about the amount of the tax, or the way in which it was raised. It was by robbery, plunder, or the most servile occupations that the soldiers' holiday was purchased. The man with the fullest purse was worn out with toil and cruel usage till he bought his furlough. His means exhausted by this outlay, and his energies utterly relaxed by idleness, the once rich and vigorous soldier returned to his company a poor and spiritless man. One after another was ruined by the same poverty and license, and rushed into mutiny and dissension, and finally into civil war. Otho, however, not to alienate the affections of the centurions by an act of bounty to the ranks, promised that his own purse should pay these annual sums. It was undoubtedly a salutary reform, and was afterwards under good emperors established as a permanent rule of the service. Laco, prefect of the city, who had been ostensibly banished to an island, was assassinated by an enrolled pensioner, sent on by Otho to do the deed. Martianus Icelus, being but a freedman, was publicly executed." Tacitus, Histories, Book 1
This was just a sampling to show some sense that Tacitus was able to distinguish between types of offices. Here you have Praetorians, prefects, centurions, and freedmen. To make this point a little deeper, let me provide another passage showing that Tacitus was not only able to distinguish between offices, but was careful to make sure he gave people the proper titles.
"So, while they dropped hints among themselves or among their friends about the emperor's crimes, the approaching end of empire, and the importance of choosing some one to rescue the State in its distress, they associated with them Tullius Senecio, Cervarius Proculus, Vulcatius Araricus, Julius Augurinus, Munatius Gratus, Antonius Natalis, and Marcius Festus, all Roman knights. Of these Senecio, one of those who was specially intimate with Nero, still kept up a show of friendship, and had consequently to struggle with all the more dangers. Natalis shared with Piso all his secret plans. The rest built their hopes on revolution. Besides Subrius and Sulpicius, whom I have already mentioned, they invited the aid of military strength, of Gavius Silvanus and Statius Proximus, tribunes of praetorian cohorts, and of two centurions, Maximus Scaurus and Venetus Paulus. But their mainstay, it was thought, was Faenius Rufus, the commander of the guard, a man of esteemed life and character, to whom Tigellinus with his brutality and shamelessness was superior in the emperor's regard. He harassed him with calumnies, and had often put him in terror by hinting that he had been Agrippina's paramour, and from sorrow at her loss was intent on vengeance. And so, when the conspirators were assured by his own repeated language that the commander of the praetorian guard had come over to their side, they once more eagerly discussed the time and place of the fatal deed. It was said that Subrius Flavus had formed a sudden resolution to attack Nero when singing on the stage, or when his house was in flames and he was running hither and thither, unattended, in the darkness. In the one case was the opportunity of solitude; in the other, the very crowd which would witness so glorious a deed, had roused a singularly noble soul; it was only the desire of escape, that foe to all great enterprises, which held him back." Tacitus, Annals, Book 15
In this case, we see Tacitus providing us a list of names as well as sharing with us the offices that most of them held. I chose this particular reference somewhat at random out of book 15, because it is book 15 where we have our reference to Pilate as a procurator. There is no way that we can pretend that Tacitus learned that Tullius Senecio was a Roman knight by rumor mongering in the Empire or oral history. All these events here occurred when Tacitus was the ripe old age of maybe 13 or 14. We could just as easily find examples where Tacitus gives us detail before he was even alive. Clearly, he is deriving his material from primary sources- all around the passage in question, in fact- yet we are asked to believe that in this one case, of Pilate, 25 years before Tacitus was even born, Tacitus made no effort to research this 'Pilate,' or was not somehow aware of Pilate through other inquiries in the archives. Yes, let's remember that- he had access to the archives.
So, let's review where we are at right now: Tacitus, a senator, a man with access to primary Roman sources, with a proven ability to distinguish between offices and a steady pattern of doing just that, even for people long before he was alive, provides us with a reference to Pilate as a procurator, not a prefect. We have an accumulation of factors that force any detractors of my argument to assume a heavier and heavier burden if they wish to yet dismiss this reference.
The truth is, at this particular point, we have a way to test whether or not Tacitus is completely shooting from the hip or whether perhaps he is drawing from some actual source material. Remembering again that he had access to the imperial archives, we might wonder how someone else with access to the imperial archives would describe Pilate. If Pilate is similarly described as a procurator, even though other titles are possible, then we can infer that both individuals are drawing off of similar primary source material. Another possibility might be that they are drawing off of similar 'rumor mongering' or merely 'picking up a story from Christian contemporaries,' but we can show that in this case to be absurd. I am, of course, speaking of Josephus.
Josephus also had access to the imperial archives. We have plenty of material by Josephus describing the governors of Judea, and the pre-dominant term is 'procurator.' Beginning with Augustus, in fact, Josephus describes a certain 'Coponius' as a procurator, not a prefect, or a praetor, or a proconsul, or any other terms that exist.
"As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done. A little after which accident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor in that government; under whom Salome, the sister of king Herod, died, and left to Julia, [Caesar's wife,] Jamnia, all its toparchy, and Phasaelis in the plain, and Arehelais, where is a great plantation of palm trees, and their fruit is excellent in its kind. After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments." Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18.
This is all material that should be familiar to you, as it is already quoted above. But now let us consider the ramifications. Both Tacitus and Josephus describe Pilate as a procurator, and both of them had access to the Roman archives. The argument that prior to Claudius, the governorship in Judea was in the hands of prefects and not procurators begins to look extremely weak.
However, what we have here is something that is very important in historical methodologies: Corroboration. The Tacitus passage we are examining does not merely cite that Pilate was a procurator. Tacitus also makes it clear that Pilate was a governor during the time of Tiberius, a fact which is also corroborated (elsewhere) by Josephus. This, at least, we can also consider corroborated, too, with the Pilate Inscription, which provides some archeological evidence. We have two individuals with extensive access to imperial records giving Pilate the same title and placing him in the same time period.
Now, if it may be suggested whimsically that Tacitus learned that Pilate was a procurator from Christians (refuted here), the same cannot be said about Josephus' description of Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus, and Pontius Pilate. First of all, quite obviously, very few of these individuals had any bearing on Christians, and second of all, their description is otherwise completely unprovocative. Shall we now believe that Christian interpolaters hijacked Josephus' description of these men in order to throw people off their trail in their interpolation of Tacitus? But this paragraph is just one example of many by Josephus in describing these men.
I should add now, that the same test I initially applied to Tacitus can certainly be applied to Josephus, as well. That is to say, does Josephus possess the ability to distinguish between 'prefect' and 'procurator'? As illustrated clearly in the full catalog, Josephus is. The next question is, "Does Josephus pay attention to titles?" The answer to that is also easily obtained: Yes.
On the basis of this argument alone, I am comfortable asserting that Tacitus was working off of some Roman source material, indicated precisely by the desciption of Pilate as a procurator rather than something else. For example, if Pilate was described using the more general term 'governor,' this argument would not hold. We have two people with access to imperial records describing people who existed before they were even born using the same descriptors and placing them (him, Pilate) in the same era. The most simple conclusion is that both men actually USED imperial records.
At this point, however, other lines of evidence open up. The whole procurator/prefect thing surprised me in that it allowed me to develop some more lines of argumentation to support the same point. So, consider the above argument- Josephus and Tacitus corroborate each other, and in turn are 2/3 corroborated by the Pilate Inscription- one leg of the stool that is my argument.
As already described, the contention is that prior to Fadus, Judea was run by prefects, and Claudius changed the title to procurators in order to communicate a more civil atmosphere. If that was Claudius' intention, Josephus and Tacitus alike tell us just how badly that went. At anyrate, as already pointed out above, there is no mention of Claudius doing such a thing. There is some evidence of Claudius re-working some ruling structures, but little in regards to Judea, and certainly nothing that specifically indicates an intentional change from 'prefecture' to 'procuratorship.' On the other hand, we actually DO have material telling us about how the government was first established in Judea by Emporer Augustus. An exploration of that establishment will open up another significant line of argumentation showing that not only was Pilate a procurator, but that both Josephus, Tacitus, AND Philo were all aware of these initial details.
The Argument Continues: Augustus' Structure of Government
Dio Cassius tells us a great deal about the changes that Augustus made in his government. Any good history of Rome can attest to the fact that Augustus made numerous changes. But in Dio Cassius, we have some very specific changes that are very interesting for our question. Consider this passage from Dio Cassius' account of Augustus, c. 20 BC:
Next he ordained that the governors of senatorial provinces should be annual magistrates, chosen by lot, except when a senator enjoyed a special privilege because of the large number of his children or because of his marriage. These governors were to be sent out by vote of the senate in public meeting; they were to carry no sword at their belt nor to wear military uniform; the name of proconsul was to belong not only to the two ex-consuls but also to the others who had merely served as praetors or who held at least the rank of ex-praetors; both classes were to employ as many lictors as were usual in the capital; and they were to assume the insignia of their office immediately upon leaving the pomerium and were to wear them constantly until they returned. 1. The other governors, on the other hand, were to be chosen by the emperor himself and were 2. to be called his envoys and propraetors, even if the men selected were ex-consuls. Thus, of these two titles which had been in vogue so long under the republic, 3. he gave that of praetor to the men chosen by him, on the ground that from very early times it had been associated with warfare, calling them propraetors; and he gave the name of consul to the others, on the ground that their duties were more peaceful, styling them proconsuls. For he reserved the full titles of consul and praetor for Italy, and designated all the governors outside of Italy as acting in their stead. 4. So, then, he caused the appointed governors to be known as propraetors and to hold office for as much longer than a year as should please him; 5. he made them wear the military uniform, and a sword, with which they are permitted to execute even soldiers. For no one else, whether proconsul, propraetor, or procurator, has been given the privilege of wearing a sword without also having been accorded the right to put a soldier to death; indeed, this right has been granted, not only to the senators, but also to the knights who are entitled to wear a sword. So much for this.
There are five comments I have bolded, and numbered. Below, they are summarized:
We will just make some brief notes now, and return to some general themes.
First of all, in 1., we see that Augustus decided in some cases to make his own selections. These, we can accurately call the emporer's 'lieutenants.' In 2., we hear a fairly uncommon term: the 'propraetor.' I did not find many instances of this word in my searches, but I did not emply as thorough a methodology as I did for 'prefect' and 'procurator.' So there may be more, but likely, not many more. Though it appears to be possible to derive a meaning for the word, it appears to be pretty rare. I only found one other instance, which I will return to shortly. Click here for what Livius had to say about the 'propraetor.' Now, 3. is very interesting. This is the sort of distinction that would have been very important for the whole premise that Claudius intentionally changed the title of the governor of Judea from 'prefect' to 'procurator,' except for the fact that no such distinction exists in our records of Claudius, but we see it here with Augustus, some 60 years before Claudius. 4. we can pass over for now, but we won't forget it. 5. Is also very interesting. Augustus goes out of his way to make sure that his lieutenants had the power to execute if they also had a sword- and the propraetor was instructed to do so.
We know that Augustus implemented this system in the provinces he managed, and one of those provinces was Syria. If you look at a map, and study the texts, you'll see that Syria was in tight proximity to Jerusalem and environs.
This is the system that was in place in the region, and even when gave the region to Herod, we read in Josephus: "and [some other dude] thereby departed this life at Antioch in Syria; so Caesar bestowed his country, which was no small one, upon Herod; it lay between Trachon and Galilee, and contained Ulatha, and Paneas, and the country round about. He also made him one of the procurators of Syria..." (Antiq 15) Even while giving Herod his wish, Josephus tells us that Herod was also designated a 'procurator.' The structure, in some ways, remained intact. Nonetheless, Herod would die, and the region again became a specific province of Rome. From Josephus, this time in Wars, Book 2, we hear this:
"AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar."
Coponius, livius.org tells us, came into Judea c. 6 AD. This is well within the reign of Augustus, and so very reasonably we can assume that the system that Augustus had established for his provinces was still in effect. With 'part of Judea reduced into a province,' apparently newly in some respects, we ought to suppose it likely that some sort of propraetorship was put in place in Judea as well. We have good reason to think so, because this passage from Josephus links up extremely well with what we have already heard from Dio Cassius about the two kinds of governors. Josephus goes out of his way to say that Coponius, a procurator, had the power of 'life and death put into his hands.' This is clear evidence exactly what kind of governor of the two described by Dio Cassius Coponius was, and therefore clear evidence of some form of 'propraetorship' in Judea. Coponius was in the 'propraetor' class of governors. When we consider the claims by Jews that they did not have the authority to execute Jesus, the claim makes little sense. But it makes more sense if there was ruling in Judea this class of governor who had the power of life and death, the inference being that this power might be jealously guarded by the one who possessed it. Still, it could be suggested that Tiberius was not bound to follow the same system, and might have done something new. The inferences that we have made here can be strengthened greatly if we could show that the 'propraetorship' was still in effect in the region during the time of Pilate, that is, after Augustus had deceased and Tiberius had become emperor. We can.
This time, it is Tacitus who utters the very unique term:
"Subsequently, on the death of Flaccus Pomponius, propraetor of Syria, a letter from the emperor was read, in which he complained that all the best men who were fit to command armies declined the service, and that he was thus necessarily driven to intreaties, by which some of the ex-consuls might be prevailed on to take provinces."
Who was the emporer, and when was it that Flaccus Pomponius died, as a 'propraetor' of Syria? It was Tiberius, and it was some time between 32 and 37 AD. This is precisely within the time that Pilate was also in Judea. I can find no other instance of the use of the word 'propraetor' and consider myself fortunate indeed to have found it in the very region and at the very same time that Pilate was in power. And yet, for the first portion of Pilate's rule, there was no envoy or propraetor in Syria. Consider this:
"Two points, however, distinguish Pilate's governorship to some extent from the others. The first is the lack of a Syrian legate for the first six years of Pilate's term of office. Tiberius appointed L. Aelius Lamia to the post but kept him in Rome, presumably trying out a form of centralized government. This may not have been altogether successful as subsequent legates governed from the Syrian capital, Antioch. (See Tacitus, Annals 1.80, 6.27, 32; Suetonius, Tiberius 63). The implication of this is that for the early part of his governorship Pilate had no legate on hand in Syria on whom he could call in an emergency. Unlike his predecessors, Pilate could not rely on the immediate support of the legions in case of unrest. This would mean that Pilate was more than usually dependent on his auxiliaries and that any potential uprising had to be put down quickly before it could escalate." From the Ecole Initiative on Pilate
What if Pilate was part of the same propraetorship, with the same power over life and death as Coponius a few governors before him? If perhaps we were aware of some other piece of evidence that helps us throw us one way or the other, we could come closer to forming a reasonable conclusion. We are.
This time, we look to Philo. Philo's 'Embassy to Gaius' speaks of Pilate, but uses the same general term of 'governor' that we hear in the Gospels. Gaius, of course is Caligula, or the emporer immediately after Tiberius. If Philo had described Pilate as a 'procurator' this whole argument would be over. Nonetheless, writing so close to the time in question, that Philo uses the term 'governor' like the NT writers do, it cannot be argued that the NT writers were mistaken or inaccurate in their own description of Pilate as a governor. But there is something in Philo's description that nonetheless helps link Pilate to a system of governance first established by Caesar Augustus. Here is the Philo reference in question:
""Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude..."
If it isn't enough to hear that Pilate is described as a 'lieutenant' of the governor, surely what sort of governor Pilate was is firmly suggested when we are told that Pilate was appointed. He did not gain his position by lot. That Pilate had control over troops, as one might expect a 'propraetor' to have, is really undeniable. The discussions of Pilate in the extra-biblical material pretty well focuses on Pilate's abuse of his military forces. Philo suggests that Pilate really had on his mind to 'vex' the multitude, and Josephus certainly seems to concur in his accounts.
We have now gathered a string of evidence beginning in Dio Cassius, that has taken us to Josephus, then to Tacitus, and then to Philo. All four of these sources solidly corroborate the notion that there was a system of governance in Syria and Judea that remained consistent with Caesar Augustus' established system. Coponius, for example (described, as you will recall, as a procurator), we are told had the power of life and death. This system clearly outlived Augustus, as the Tacitus passage demonstrates: Tiberius retained the propraetorship in Syria. We might coldly suggest that Tiberius' favorite part of the system was the part where he could leave people in office for more than the normal 1-2 years, leaving Pilate in office for nearly 11 years (see 4. above). Pilate, we are told, is appointed, and is described as one of the emperor's lieutenants. Between this, and the clear line of succession of procurators that Josephus lays out, and the references in the NT to Jewish concerns about not being permitted to execute anyone, we can reasonably conclude that Pilate, too, was also a man in an office that had the 'power over life and death.'
The extraordinarily nice thing about this argument is how many different sources converge to help make the case. We have not found ourselves limited to only Josephus, for example, but have drawn off of two Jewish authors and historians and two Roman historians. When Dio Cassius describes the Augustan system of governorship for his provinces, we have a reference by Tacitus showing that such a system was still in place decades after Caesar's death, and during the time of Tiberius- during the time, and in the region, of Pilate himself.
However, those who consider it a fact that Coponius .... Pilate (etc) were prefects, and not procurators, what I have said above might not be very provocative. After all, the assertion on the table in that regards is already that Pilate and the others were likely from a military background with military efforts in the region. However, consider it in light of that particular claim. The notion that these men were prefects, and prefects only, and only with Emperor Claudius was there a switch from 'prefect' to 'procurator' made, is derived ONLY from the Pilate Inscription. As you can see for yourself by perusing the full catalog, there simply is no reference of Claudius doing such a thing. In fact, one of the primary sources about the nasty procurator that Claudius did send, Fadus, is Josephus, who describes Fadus as a procurator. If Josephus' description of Coponius thru Pilate was in error by describing them as procurators, why on earth should we think he got it right in regards to Fadus? This we might call selective inerrancy- picking the passages you'll trust and not trust as it suits your argument.
But I doubt I have made the point plain enough. The only firm documentary evidence we have is in Augustus' establishment of a type of governor. We know about his 'lieutenants,' about how they could bear the sword, and how they were appointed, and how they were called propraetors. We have considered a number of examples in Syria showing that system still in effect at the time of Coponius and Pilate. But what do we have to show that Claudius made a change? Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. We have nothing more than some comments telling us that after King Agrippa died, Claudius sent the procurator Fadus to Judea. We have no lengthy discussion on the governance of the province, and no mention that a non-military title was to be preferred. The mention to considerations of non-military versus military titles is in Dio Cassius about Augustus! Not Josephus or anyone else about Claudius! As far as can be told, even Claudius retained the pattern of Augustus, as is implied in this reference by Josephus (Ant. 20): "So Caesar [Claudius] thought what they said to be reasonable. Accordingly he sent Cuspins Fadus to be procurator of Judea, and of the entire kingdom..." In otherwords, Fadus was appointed, not chosen by lot. This would suggest to us what sort of class of governor Fadus was, and the procurators after Agrippa certainly showed their military tendencies. So much for showing a 'civillian side.'
Thus, we really ought to be thinking a little more critically about the significance of the PILATE inscription, and whether or not it truly shows that Tacitus spoke in error. I have a number of points to make about that, and shall get to them soon. There is one vital point to make, though:
The coherency of this set of arguments, stretching from Dio Cassius, to Tacitus, to Josephus, to Philo, indicates that they were all working off of the same set of information. Underlying all of the passages I have presented and much of the material I have not, is the sense that in Judea at least, there was a certain sort of governor, and they knew what that sort was. I had originally planned on pointing primarily to the fact that both Josephus and Tacitus had access to Roman archives and used the same terminology, but this direction shows that Josephus, Tacitus, Philo, and Dio Cassius were all operating from a similar set of sources and information. This is not as straightforward as the primary argument I intended to focus on, but in a sense, it is more robust than that one, because it covers more authors operating at different periods of time (Philo, c. 40 AD, Josephus c. 80 AD, Tacitus c. 115 AD, Dio Cassius c. 200-220 AD).
As the question of the sourcing behind Tacitus' passage is one of the primary challenges against it, having two independent lines of argumentation suggesting that he used reliable sources obviously bolsters a prima facie acceptance of the passage.
Let us turn again to that issue. We have already refuted the notion that Tacitus got his information from Christians (click here) but it remains open, obviously, about where he did get his information from. If it wasn't from Roman records, and it wasn't from Christians, where might it be from? One suggestion would be as follows:
"1. As there was a procuratorship in Judea when Tacitus was writing, 2. he would have simply assumed that it had always been a procuratorship all the way back to who knows when."
In regards to 1., we see that we have only put the question back a step. How did he know that there was a procuratorship in Judea at the time in the first place, in order to assume it in point 2? Did he learn this from Pliny, or from Christians, or from his own personal travels? In a crazy scheme to fault Tacitus for laziness in not using the right term (assumably, 'prefect'), we had to consider the idea that people had simply used the term 'procurator' in regards to Pilate and Coponius, etc, simply by the inertia of the term's use at the time. But how did any of them find out the term's use at the time, in the first place? In order to succumb to this inertia, Tacitus would have had to have been subject to it. The whole suggestion, however, only has legs because of the Pilate Inscription. Apart from that, we'd simply assume that Coponius et. al, really were procurators, and we'd take Tacitus 15 on it's face.
However, it would be very helpful if we could insert at this time some sort of demonstration of Tacitus' use of titles at certain times and places. Of course, I already did- here. But I was saving the best example for last. We have discussed a passage of Tacitus that thoroughly demonstrates that he had an awareness of the governmental system in the region AT THE TIME OF PILATE. Here it is again:
"Subsequently, on the death of Flaccus Pomponius, propraetor of Syria, a letter from the emperor was read, in which he complained that all the best men who were fit to command armies declined the service, and that he was thus necessarily driven to intreaties, by which some of the ex-consuls might be prevailed on to take provinces." Annals, Book 6, 32-37 AD.
This is the specific region and the specific time period that Pilate ruled in. Can we really believe that Tacitus would accurately describe the propraetorship of Syria, the very region that Pilate was in and at the same time, but was unaware of whatever nuanced title Pilate required? In face of this very specific reference to the type of governance of Judea at the very time in question, it is truly absurd to believe that Tacitus made a mistake, tha the engaged in an 'anachronism,' simply because of a silly piece of rock that describes Pilate as a 'prefect' and not a 'procurator.' We have clear evidence of Tacitus awareness of titles and title changes- including in Syria.
And yet, the question deserves attention. May we consider a number of possibilities, here?
1. Given the strange authority given to the Pilate Inscription so that it is permitted to overthrow hordes of documentary evidence, I thought it worth pointing out that the Pilate Inscription was found when a seat at a theater in Caesarea was turned over. That's right, the primary purpose of the Pilate Inscription for centuries was to serve as a butt rest for visitors. Surely we can consider the following conversation a possibility:
"Crickeys!" said Maxim
"What is it?" returned Overdruvus
"I'm working on this inscription for Pilate, but I wrote prefect instead of procurator!" replied Maxim.
"Well, that was stupid. Just throw it away."
"No, I'll see if maybe they can use it somehow over at the theater...."
Given its less than dignified place of discovery, and the over whelming weight of the documentary evidence describing Pilate and the other governors as 'procurators,' it's at least worthy of consideration.
3. You cannot read the histories of ancient times or modern times without noticing that people tend to move from position to position. It's silly to categorically re-label the titles of seven men just because of an inscription about one of them, when it is entirely possible (it has to be- we know very little about Pilate's origins and route to Judea) that the man simply occupied the office of 'prefect' and occupied another office at some other time. I can imagine two thousands years from now when archeologists excavate a Texas baseball stadium, and find the words "Governor Bush sucks" written under one of them- suddenly, the whole idea that Bush was the President of our country is thrown out, and all the presidents that came before and perhaps after are re-classified as 'governors.' You can hear the scholars talking: "We used to think that Bush was the President of the country, but then we found the Bush Inscription, so now we know that he and all the men before him were actually governors." Yea....... making a whole lot of sense here....
2. 2. has a little more potential because unlike in my discussions of points 1 and 3, we can spend a little more time looking at the documentary evidence. Can we establish from the documentary material available that governors in general, and perhaps these governors in particular, could be- and were- accurately called a number of different titles at the very same time?
There is a subtle distinction between this and the related issue of whether Tacitus was diligent or not in regards to titles. As we have briefly demonstrated, Tacitus was diligent in regards to titles. This is a broader question than the former, because the idea here is to check a variety of ancient sources that appear to be diligent in regards to titles, and see how they treated 'governor' titles.
Another chain of evidence can be pursued concurrently where we take a general description of the duties of procurators and see if Pilate and his other Judean 'prefects' were also engaging in the business of doing what procurators do. These two chains intertwine, such that if we can satisfactorily demonstrate that some of these titles can be held concurrently, at the very least we could suggest that Pilate could have been rightfully called both a 'prefect' and a 'procurator' at the same time. More substantially, though, we might be able to demonstrate that besides the military authorities possessed by the governorship in Judea (already discussed) which are somewhat undisputed, we might be able to demonstrate that these same fulfilled functions of a procurator, and so very conceivably had that name, too. I say 'very conceivably' trying to pretend that we don't have explicit descriptions of this governorship as being a procuratorship by Josephus and further, Pilate as a procurator by Tacitus. But first we will spend some time exploring the first strand: could people possess multiple titles at the same time?
The answer, succinctly, is yes, and the material to support is so numerous I submit to the reader that they peruse these various histories on their own to see if that is the case. The 'propraetor' of Syria, for example, is described as a 'president' in another place (I don't know what the Latin word is underneat that particular term). In other places, this person is described as a governor. In another place, as a 'legate.' (Some of these instances are found on my full catalog page). This is just Syria. One can look at other regions and provinces to see, too, various different names for the same title.
Our purposes are specifically in reference to Judea, and Syria is in the very same neighborhood, so I chose that as a relevant example of such tendencies in the region in question.
From Philo, as you recall, we have Pilate described this way: "Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea." As a 'lieutenant' we can infer he was either a propraetor, a knight, or an envoy- since he was appointed. Whatever this position was, Philo assures us that it was proper to consider Pilate a 'governor.' As I explain in THIS link, 'governor' is also the favored term of the Christian documents. I could submit them as evidence that Pilate could be called a governor, but most skeptics reading this consider the NT guilty until proven otherwise, so that would not help. But Philo doing the same both helps us in this case and in theory bolsters the credibility of the NT (see HERE). Of course, Josephus also describes what these officials doing as being that of a 'governor,' but since apparently we must summarily dismiss his descriptions because of one lousy piece of rock with an inscription on it, I guess we can't use him.
Now all we need on this front is a simple passage showing that it is specifically known that procurators could be considered governors. I know a lot of this is not really contentious, especially if you take an evidence drive view of history (See my philosophy on history), because it's a natural and common sense set of connections to make. However, we can produce a passage that connects the dots sufficiently for us so that if anyone needed something more explicit, they could turn to this passage, from Dio Cassius's 'Life of Claudius.'
"Narcissus used to make sport openly of Claudius. Indeed, the report has it that on a certain occasion when Claudius was holding court and the Bithynians raised a great outcry against Junius Cilo, who had been their governor, claiming that he had taken enormous bribes, and the emperor, not understanding by reason of the noise they made, asked the bystanders what they were saying, Narcissus, instead of telling him the truth, said that they were expressing their gratitude to Junius. And Claudius, believing him, said: "Well, then, he should be procurator two years longer."
It's too bad that this particular man was not in Judea, or else we should consider the whole notion that Claudius instigated some great change in Judea null and void, for here we have a man who had been governor of the Bithynians described by Claudius as a procurator.
If there were any doubt that Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament authors were appropriately thinking of Pilate and the other procurators as 'governors,' this passage here, describing a reality c. 40-45 AD, only a few years out from Pilate's own time, this passage from Dio Cassius makes it explicitly clear that such terminology is appropriate.
This satisfactorily substantiates #2 above. Different titles could be used concurrently to describe the same person, and a governor could be a procurator. This conclusion is consistent also with the possibility that both #1 and #3 above are true, too. Pilate could have been a prefect as well as a procurator, or he was a prefect at one time and a procurator at another, or the inscription itself is inaccurate. Or, we could moderate that by pointing out that the thing is incomplete, and a more complete and legible reading might have shed further light.
Now we have the second strand of argumentation to take into account. What did a procurator do, and did Coponius ...etc...Pilate perform such functions? If they did perform such functions, the description of these men as 'procurators' is completely justified.
In order to save time, we will simply cite Wikipedia and Livius.org for our information about the functions of procurators:
From Wiki:
"Other promagistrates include the procurator, acting in place of a curator.
The institution of promagistracies developed because the Romans found it inconvenient to continue adding ordinary magistracies to administer their newly-acquired overseas possessions. Therefore, they adopted the practice of appointing an individual to act in place or capacity of (pro) a magistrate (magistratu); a promagistrate was literally a lieutenant."
From livius:
"When the emperor Augustus had to organize the empire at the beginning of our era, he used procurators to manage his extensive private and public domains. He had to. In the provinces that were directly under his control, he could not employ quaestors, because no senator would think of serving under someone who was technically his equal. Therefore, he made procurators responsible for the taxation. Other procurators administered Augustus' private finances and his possessions in and near Rome and in the senatorial provinces."
This calls to our attention what I have already said about how Augustus established governance of the provinces under his own control.
More:
"Other procurators were responsible for semi-financial duties, such as the mint, the management of mines, and the 5%-tax on inheritances, but also non-financial tasks, such as the education of gladiators."
At this point, I'd like to call attention to the 'semi-financial duties.' Livius.org here cites the mint.
Do we have evidence of Pilate minting anything? Absolutely, we do. We have in our possession many coins that Pilate minted. Here is a link to an article that describes them. Importantly, the time frame for the minting of these coins is in 29-31 AD, so specifically during the time of Jesus' ministry and later crucifixion. So, that's one 'semi-financial duty' of a procurator that we see Pilate engaged in.
What else?
In Josephus, Wars, book 2, we have the following account:
"After this he [Pilate] raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs."
I'd say that's an attempt to engage in a financial duty. The New Testament describes a temple tax active at the time, too (eg., Matthew 17:22). As I recall (I didn't double check this), the temple tax was arranged by Caesar Augustus in exchange for the Jews to be allowed to retain their customs. This special agreement alone strongly suggests that whomever would be in charge of Judea would perform procuratorial duties.
It is evident, then, that Pilate performed the functions of a procurator, while not one bit giving up any of the apparent military authorities he possessed, either.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and smells like a duck, AND people call it a duck- two notable ancient historians included, it probably really is a procurator. The evidence is substantial that Pilate was in fact a procurator.
The purpose of this very long essay has been to demonstrate that Tacitus' description of Pilate as a 'procurator' actually serves to bolster Tacitus' credibility in this passage rather than detract from it. In summary, here are the points that have been addressed and argued:
A. Tacitus, a senator himself and so already attuned to different rankings in the Roman empire, had access to the Imperial archives. It is evident that in general, he made use of such sources throughout his works. There is little to suggest that he did not do so in the case of Pilate, either.
B. Tacitus was not the only person with access to the Imperial archives. Josephus also had access to Imperial archives, and also described Pilate as a procurator. In fact, Josephus described everyone in the position, from Coponius on, as procurators, with one possible exception. Josephus, too, is completely impervious to allegations that he gained his information from Christians.
Conclusion #1.: Two people with complete access gave the same title. One of those cannot be attacked on notions that the information was gained via some Christian source. Both showed attention to detail in regards to titles. Thus, the prima facie interpretation of Tacitus is corroborated by Josephus' use of the same term. Had Tacitus used 'governor,' we would not be able to make this link.
A. Christians were clearly around at the time of Tacitus, and in theory, could have informed him (or a proxy) about the origins of Christianity.
B. As demonstrated here, the term 'procurator' and 'extreme punishment' are not found in the vocabulary of Christians at the time.
Conclusion #2: It is unlikely and a nothing more than a speculative stretch to seriously consider the notion that Tacitus chose such source material, especially when we cannot show that Christians had their message packaged in that way. Furthermore, Conclusion #1 provides a positive reason to look towards some other source other than Christians.
A. There is no evidence that Claudius instigated an institutional make-over after Agrippa died in sending Fadus to Judea.
B. There is evidence that Augustus established a governing structure for his provinces in which the governors had the power over life and death, and were appointed rather than selected by lot. He called them 'propraetors.'
C. There is evidence that the governors in Judea were exactly like those described by Dio Cassius, referencing, for example, Tacitus' acknowledgement of the existence of a propraetorship in Syria c. 33 AD.
D. Josephus gives us information that Coponius had the power of life and death and Philo tells us that Pilate was appointed.
Conclusion #3. The coherency of these facts argues strongly for the notion that all four, Dio Cassius, Tacitus, Josephus, and Philo, were all aware of Caesar Augustus' system, and there comments about the governance in the region are consistent with that awareness. That all four were aware of either the same source material, or information presenting the same point of view, is firmly suggested. Thus, when Tacitus describes Pilate as a procurator, it is reasonable to conclude he did so in part because of this information.
Some have argued that Tacitus was merely reflecting the inertia in the region in question- there were procurators when he was writing, so he just continued to use that term, himself. However,
A. We must wonder how it is he knew there were procurators in the region. It wasn't his region, after all. Did he also learn from Christians or proxies that procurators were currently in the region? We know that Christians didn't describe Pilate as procurator, so we are left scratching our heads about how the 'Inertia Argument' get's started in the first place.
B. Nonetheless, we have positive evidence that Tacitus was specifically aware of the type of governance in the region, and cites the propraetorship in Syria in exactly the right place and time for the propraetorship to have been in place.
Conclusion #4. Tacitus showed in his reference to the propraetorship in Syria that he was aware of the governing system in the region. The term 'propraetor' is relatively rare in the historical material available to us covering this time period. Where did Tacitus learn this term and its corresponding office if not from looking at Roman records going back to the time of Caesar Augustus? We need not consider the 'Inertia Argument' because in 'B' we have positive evidence of Tacitus paying attention to specific details of governance in the region, and at the time.
Some have argued that Tacitus would not have cared about Christ or the Christians, and so would not have felt compelled to source check. This ignores conclusions #1-4 above, especially #4, which is proof positive that Tacitus was aware of the governance structure in the region at the time. However, we can approach the topic more broadly:
A. As illustrated in a couple of examples in this essay, Tacitus paid attention to the ranks and titles of the people he described.
B. In one example, from Annals 15, the very book where our disputed passage appears, Tacitus shows knowledge and awareness of titles and title changes.
Conclusion #5. Despite conclusion #4, which explicitly shows knowledge of governance in the region at the time, we could still dismiss attempts to read Tacitus' interest level by pointing to example after example of Tacitus trying to use the right titles for individuals.
The only piece of evidence to suggest that Tacitus is wrong is the Pilate Inscription.
A. It is possible that the Pilate Inscription is inaccurate, or if we had a complete copy of the inscription, the implications would be different.
B. Even if the Pilate Inscription is completely legit, and Pilate was a 'prefect,' it does not follow that he was never a procurator, or could not rightfully be called a procurator, anyway. As demonstrated in this essay, Pilate performed functions explicitly in line with the functions of a procurator.
C. The evidence from sources across the board- Philo, Dio Cassius, Josephus, and Tacitus, is that they were aware of the situation in Palestine, and by easy inference, this awareness was generated from access to the same kind of information.
D. Even if Pilate was a prefect, and Tacitus was in error, that Josephus makes the same error shows the two were using the same source information. That is far simpler than thinking that they both arrived at the same mistake via independant means.
Conclusion #6. The overwhelming documentary evidence is that the Pilate Inscription will need to be re-evaluated for its implications. While it helpfully corroborates the existence of Pilate and his rule during Tiberius, the notion that Pilate was a prefect, and specifically NOT anything else, is completely uncorroborated and stands in defiance of the existing material. Since the existing material pulls from numerous sources (We have mentioned four- Philo, Josephus, Dio Cassius, and Tacitus), it should require a much more substantial argument and much more evidence before we consider it even plausible that these authors were all wrong about their characterizations.
Is Other Information Available?
At this time, it would be appropriate to mention that in my attempt to get to the bottom of this claim that Claudius changed the title of the governor in Judea from 'prefect' to 'procurator', I emailed the primary contributor to the Ecole Initiatives page on Pontius Pilate, Dr. Helen Bond. In that page she cites a certain Lémonon, who I was unable to acquire for myself to examine the basis for this claim. She returned my email, explaining that she had put that page together quite a few years ago and could not recall the original source for that claim. She noted that some other sources she used might be helpful on the question. Here they are:
I have been unable to procure any of these sources, so I must leave it as an open possibility that they are aware of information that I am not aware of that would shed light on this specific claim. However, as I searched pretty thoroughly for such information on my own, and am unaware of what else there could be, I feel confident in my conclusions dismissing the claim that Claudius initiated any such change. However, this does not really reflect globally on my arguments, anyway:
A. From 6.D above, even if Tacitus and Josephus are alike in their error, that they both had access to imperial records and made the same mistake strongly suggests that they were using the same set of information.
B. None of my arguments fail if it is shown that Claudius made such a change. In fact, ironically, all of my arguments are strengthened, because all it would mean is that all of the historians we have looked at made the same mistakes. How could we explain this? The implication is that they ALL had access to imperial records (or reliable records, at anyrate), and yet all erred.
Conclusion #7. The shared reporting of the information described in this essay, if in fact false, does not show that they were not using imperial or otherwise reliable records. What it shows is that those records themselves were in error. While such a situation perhaps it reduces us to agnosticism in regards to which 'imperial' source records were reliable, the Tacitus passage talking about Jesus, is strengthened in its authenticity as evidence for the EXISTENCE of Jesus, because all that is necessary is that we have good reason to think that there were any records available at all.
Net Conclusion: We have a number of positive reasons, based on evidence, not argument, for believing that Tacitus was pulling from authorative source material. The simplest explanation is that because of the common superior access to Imperial records shared with Josephus, who used the same title, this source material was Roman records. The sufficiency of this explanation is deepened when we track the shared awareness between those two and Dio Cassius and Philo of the governmental structure in Palestine. The other arguments I've raised all contain evidences that are also consistent with this explanation.