I think the quotes are flat out wrong. Flamen ≠
Pontifex. I didn't mention the flamens or the
Rex Sacrorum in talking about the priestly colleges because they were offices held by one
man only.
In the earliest days in the Republic the distinction between
patrician and plebeian was most important. But in the late Republic, the distinction between patricians and plebeian
nobility was a relatively unimportant one. As I understand it, like most high offices the augurs and pontifices could originally be held only by patricians. Just like the consulship, for example. As the constitution developed,
men of plebeian origin became eligible for more and more offices, until the only ones
still reserved for patricians were special cases like the three major flaminates and the princeps
senatus. On the other hand, patricians could not be tribunes of the plebs - the reason for a very famous case of a
patrician - Publius Clodius, giving up
his patrician status so he could hold an office which gave a great advantage for one of
his political
style.
I would compare Antony and Pilate as follows: Antony was a senator from a noble family that was plebeian. Noble meaning that an ancestors in the patrimonial line held the consulship. Pilate was a novus homo, a new
man, one whose family was a long way down the social ladder. The office of prefect was, as I understand it, held only by
members of the
Equestrian order, as was, for example, the governorship of
Egypt - a far more important province than
Judaea! And obviously there is simply no comparison between them as to power and repute, Antony was a supremely important
man, at one time in control of the entire
Roman East, and we have by ancient standards huge amounts of information about him. Pilate was a relative nobody, and would be virtually unknown if he hadn't been involved in the crucifixion stories of the New Testament.
Antony was high
nobility, hence
his eligibility to be elected
augur. Pilate was many rungs down the ladder, and very unlikely to have held the post.
Steve