The Acts of Pilate that both Tertullian and Justin reference would be more appropriate to cite (direct testimony to the event in question) than a statement from Tacitus.

Jonathan, the commenter’s question was, why do they not quote the document, if they knew what was in it?

The point is, either they knew what was in it, in which case your theory entails it would have been the most valuable evidence any apologist could ever quote; or they did not know what was in it, in which case your theory fails to be validated. Either way, the evidence (that they never quote it) disproves your thesis, because that is very improbable on your suppositions; but not improbable if your suppositions are false.

That’s why the commenter is asking you this question.

(Note that only Tertullian gives a description, not a quotation, of an Acts of Pilate, which content demonstrates it was a forgery, as F.F. Bruce noted; and the extant Acts of Pilate is a pro-Christian document that is clearly a forgery—not the forgery of Maximin, whatever that looked like; so there is no evidence of any real Acts of Pilate. This is a central problem with your case that I have already noted in my rebuttal.)

Mr. Wolfe,

Thank you for your comments.

I have taken the time in my recently released rebuttal to Dr. Carrier to provide additional commentary on Tacitus’ statement, because I believe there is some additional context that needs to be considered in evaluating what Tacitus is referring to when he connects Christians with a “most mischievous superstition”.

Here is what I wrote:

“The plight of the Christians in Rome was also perceived by the emperor Nero as a political problem in his administration (Circa 65AD) which explains why Tacitus tells us that Nero “falsely accused the Christians” of setting fires in the market places of Rome . Tacitus reports Christians were “infamous for their abominations ”; this sheds light on the height and popularity of Christianity in Rome.

Tacitus clearly assessed Christianity as a threat when he emphasized the Christians “destructive superstition ”reporting that it had “erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome .” Given that Tacitus introduces this information with a strong allusion to Jesus and the extreme penalty he suffered at the hands of Pilate , this “destructive superstition ” mentioned by him, all points back to the resurrection of Jesus. This places the resurrection on the Empires radar, and the urgent nature of Tacitus’ language paints a vastly different picture than what Dr. Carrier asserts.

Were records not available to Tacitus to falsify such a “destructive superstition”? Tacitus would have had access to reach out to Josephus, Agrippa II, or his court for information. Tacitus plainly describes the Christians with language that deems them a threat to Rome. He calls them “Infamous ,” and depicts Christianity as a political problem for the Emperor Nero that is spreading its “destructive superstition” throughout Rome and Judea . Despite his serious tone, no tome was produced in Tacitus’s histories or annals falsifying the Christians’ claims. For Tacitus to publish such a tome without convincing evidence would be unwise and likely embarrass the emperor, costing him his head as a Roman citizen, which would explain his reluctance to do so.”

The context of Tacitus statement identifies the origin of the superstition from Judea, and then spreads to Rome. Tacitus proceeds that statement with a discussion of Christians, that he connects with a figure (strong allusion to Jesus) and was executed under Pilate. Peter is preaching on Christ and the resurrection from Jerusalem (Acts 2). Paul in Corinthians establishes that the central message of the Gospel is Jesus and the resurrection, and that he preaches Christ Crucified. Remember, there is a church in Rome that Paul is writing too. In that letter Paul is trying to get the Jews and gentiles to work together, which indicates many gentiles in Rome are converting. This superstition Tacitus mentions basically all points back to the resurrection of Jesus.

Pliny echoes a similar superstition that is spreading throughout his land from the Christians, which is consistent with the Gospel message of Jesus and the resurrection.

What other superstition would be consistent with all those factors Mr. Wolfe?

Regarding your question “What source(s) do you think Tacitus used for 15.44?”.

Pliny the Younger refers to Tacitus’s reliance upon his uncle’s works in this statement:

“For my part I deem those blessed to whom, by favour of the gods, it has been granted either to do what is worth writing of, or to write what is worth reading; above measure blessed those on whom both gifts have been conferred. In the latter number will be my uncle, by virtue of his own and of your compositions.”

Tacitus appears to have access to Pliny the Elder’s records.

There is no mention in Tacitus that he was hanging out with Christians, and to arrive at such a conclusion, is not based on any empirical document from the ancient world. Tacitus is writing the Annals, which seems to imply he has access to records.

Regarding your last question: “how do you explain the lack of it being employed by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and the like. Seems like a gold mine for Christian apologists of the time.”

The Acts of Pilate that both Tertullian and Justin reference would be more appropriate to cite (direct testimony to the event in question) than a statement from Tacitus.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Jonathan A. Sheffield

Apologies for the double post, pressing enter posted the comment instead of inserting a line break for some reason.

It seems to me that multiple issues are being conflated. First, COULD a Roman scholar have written a rebuttal of Christian claims. Second, WOULD one have done so, assuming they could have, based on anything remotely resembling relevant evidence.

And finally, If one could have, and one did so, would that book have survived? Now, I grant that I’m an amateur, but it seems to me that the answers are “Probably not, probably not, and probably not.”

Sheffield wrote, “But It seems strange to me, that if the resurrection were truly a hoax, that the extent documentation is not significantly favoring the side of the Roman Empire.”

Does it really seem strange to you? You seem to be implying that it would be a pure matter of random chance which documents survived and which did not. It was anything but random; for almost a thousand years the primary vector (if not in times and places the sole vector) of ancient document transmission was Christian churches and scribes. Given the inherent lack of motivation to preserve things hostile to Christianity, and not just fail to preserve them, but to deliberately destroy them, the same way that non-orthodox writings were similarly not preserved or actively destroyed, I think it would be more surprising if an early, sourced, and scholarly rebuttal of Christian claims was preserved.

If you let documents rest in the hands of people who would be hostile to them for a thousand years of transmission and manuscript copying, I think the survival of those documents is more strange than the destruction of them.

Note Sheffield’s rebuttal has been received and will go live this week.

Thank you, Mr. Sheffield, I look forward to your future exchanges with Dr. Carrier.

Mchasewalker,

Thank you for your comments.

I do find the question under discussion fascinating, as we are able to explore the subject through records left behind from the Empires perspective. As an Anglican, this is a welcome break from the general stream of apologetics provided by the evangelical community on this topic. I personally believe the evangelical community has yet to offer up an effective intellectual response.

I do refer to Seutonius’ statement and offer comments in my rebuttal, along with similar statements echoed by Pliny and Tacitus.

In addition, I touch briefly in my rebuttal on the phenomenon of resurrection from the writings of Plutarch and Herodotus specific to the cases to Aristeas and Romulus.

Once my rebuttal to Dr. Carrier is published on the blog, and Dr. Carrier has had time to review, please do follow up with me so I can share my perspective, and go into more details.

More to come…

Jonathan A. Sheffield

Thanks for your response Mr. Sheffield. I confess that the purpose of my question was twofold. Primarily to make Dr. Carrier and his readership aware of its content as I am unaware of anyone who has ever commented on its subject besides myself.

Secondarily here, you want to try and rely on Eusebius to disincarnate Patristics into “The Church”, a contemporary trustworthy organization who’s credibility has not been impeached by any comparable organization. On the other hand, when Eusebius says something that does not support Christian assertion he is magically incarnated into just a man who is not Scripture.

You did the same thing with The Ending of Mark. Trying to move the discussion from specifics to the general and than posturing that the small quantity of negative evidence at the Macro level (such as “The Church did this or that”) proves your position.

That just standard Apologetics. Raising the standard for proof of the other side to a level where there is less evidence and then posturing that is decisive. You can not ignore Eusebius as evidence here when you do not like what he says. That makes you an Advocate, not a Judge. Unless that’s what you want to be?

Joseph,

Thank you for your comments.

My view on Eusebius is he is just one of many resources from the ancient world providing documentation that he has collected to form his historiographic narrative. As a court Bishop and historian, I give him his due respect, but Eusebius certainly had his biases.

Regarding your question “why do you think that Eusebius thought “Mark” did not describe any post-resurrection sighting?

As Dr. Carrier has already pointed out, please see our extended discussion on the topic for more information relating to your question.

Jonathan A. Sheffield

Benjamin,

Thank you for your comments.

Regarding your question “is it your intention to address the issue of low rate of document survival both FROM and WITHIN antiquity?”

Yes, in my recently submitted rebuttal to Dr. Carrier, I have touched on the subject in a couple of areas of my response. Once it is posted, feel free to follow up with me and share your thoughts. I would agree with Dr. Carrier’s assessment when he states:

“most ancient records and books were lost to deacquisition or accidental fires.”

The natural presumption is that most records would not survive after 2000 years. I am also open to the possibility that Diocletian, during his campaign against Christianity, would have destroyed any records favorable to Christianity.

But It seems strange to me, that if the resurrection were truly a hoax, that the extent documentation is not significantly favoring the side of the Roman Empire. Instead, it favors Christianity. Think about it in this light Benjamin, the Roman Empire had the historians, the power, the resources, and control of the surrounding areas, compared to the churches. So, if we apply sampling theory to the extent documentation, it seems to me that the low percentage of counternarratives to the Gospels can be best explained that it was the Gospel truth.

Jonathan A. Sheffield