Anglican autodidact Jonathan Sheffield is back and we will this time be debating whether the Romans should have disproved the resurrection of Jesus—and thus, their not having done so proves Jesus really did rise from the dead. Last time we had an extended serialized debate over whether the long ending of Mark (verses 16:9-20) was in the original draft and not an interpolation. This time we will do just opening statements and one set of rebuttals on my blog here, and then follow up with an open discussion live at Modern-Day Debate (scheduled for 5pm Pacific on Friday, June 26).
Sheffield himself has again funded this exchange and we will share full non-exclusive rights to its content. Sheffield will begin with an opening statement, which is now provided below. Tomorrow I will publish my reply. His and my sole rebuttals will come in future weeks. All entries will be limited to 2000 words (not counting citations). The video discussion we hope to have available by the end of June but no later than July. Links to all the above will be added here as they arise.
Comments on each of the entries in this debate series are open to anyone who submits polite and relevant remarks. Patreon and PayPal patrons retain the privilege of their comments publishing immediately. Everyone else’s will wait in a moderation queue that I will have to check and clear every few days. Jonathan Sheffield specially asks that atheists engage with this debate. So do feel free to comment. But please make your remarks polite, relevant, and informed.
After this opening is my rebuttal, Sheffield’s response, and my closing statement. We then continued on Modern Day Debate.
Why Weren’t the Rulers of the Roman Empire Able to Falsify the Resurrection of Jesus?
by Jonathan Sheffield
Why weren’t the rulers of the Roman Empire able to falsify the resurrection of Jesus? It surely wasn’t for a lack of effort; because Eusebius records in his histories that forged memoranda of Pilate and Jesus were published under Emperor Maximin II around 311 A.D., and sent to every district under his command (see Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 361 [9.5.1]). He announced in edicts that they were to be publicly displayed and should be given to the school children by their teachers instead of lessons to study (Ibid.).
As emperor, why would Maximin need to publish a forged memorandum of Pilate, when he would have had access to the official records of the empire? According to Cicero, the prefect of Judea was obligated to deposit two copies of his account in the two chief cities of his province and place one in the archives of the Acrariuni (see Lynn H. Wood, “Can the Acts of Pilate, as published in “The Political and Legal History of the Trial of Jesus” (William Overton Clough, Indianapolis, 1895), be accepted as authentic?” The Ministry 12.1 (January 1939)).
Justin Martyr in 150 A.D. appeals for the release of these Acts, in his published Defense of Christianity to the Emperor Antoninus, which he believed would substantiate the Gospels Account affirming: “these things did happen as you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate” (see Justin Martyr, First Apology 35). The response Justin received was not the publication of the official records refuting his claims, but martyrdom.
It’s interesting that Tacitus, one of the greatest historians of the Roman Empire, who wrote specifically on the period in question, referring to the extreme penalty Jesus suffered at the hands of Pilate, and the early Christians in Rome (Tacitus, Annals 15.44) did not provide a historiographic narrative falsifying the resurrection event. In a similar fashion, Josephus’s histories provides valuable insight into first century Judaism (see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews), background of early Christianity, and an account of Jesus’s brother James (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1); yet no tome refuting a resurrection hoax, even though such a tome would have served Josephus well at the court of the Flavian emperors.
Remember that years prior, according to the published Acts of the Apostles (Acts 25-26), the apostle Paul defended the Gospel account as he stood before Festus, the Prefect of Judea, and Agrippa, the King of Galilee (the area where Jesus grew up and the events surrounding his ministry mainly occurred). For when Festus accused Paul of being beside himself, and claimed that too much learning had made Paul mad (Acts 26:24), Paul responded to Festus by stating:
I speak forth the words of truth and soberness, For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
(Acts 26:25-26)
Several Key points are established here in Paul’s statement:
- First, as King, Agrippa was well aware of the events that transpired in his kingdom and could have easily refuted what Paul was saying if a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus was available that could have then been published against the Christians and copied throughout the empire.
- Secondly, Festus, the Prefect of Judea, had access to the official records in Judea that could have been used against Paul, if information was available to falsify the resurrection account from Pilate’s memoranda.
- Lastly, Paul demonstrates that the account of Jesus’ resurrection provides falsifiable criteria that is subject to a proper investigation by the rulers of the Roman Empire to uncover.
- And it’s this falsifiable event, i.e, the resurrection, that marks the distinction with Christianity as opposed to other religions like Islam and Buddhism.
Unless the NSA has video surveillance of Muhammad’s conversation with the Angel Gabriel from the 7th century, or we can download the satellite images of the monkey that threw down the fruit of the bo tree onto Buddha’s head that caused him to see the light, we don’t have standard criteria to falsify those inner experiences. This is why we have Karl Popper’s Criterion of Falsifiability; so we can evaluate the inherent testability of any hypothesis or statement; and a hypothesis is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it’s false.
Therefore, let’s be scientific in our approach, and follow in the footsteps of the Amazing Randi, whose dealings with the supernatural claims of the psychic community wasn’t just an array of allegations that they were fake, and that he didn’t believe it; instead, he felt the need to demonstrate under scientific, testable conditions how it was done. By putting Karl Popper’s maxim into practice, James Randi was able to achieve similar results to those of the psychic community through naturalistic means, thereby falsifying their supernatural claims.
Therefore, in Christianity, all that is needed to falsify the resurrection of Jesus, is to either:
- Produce the body;
- Provide a credible tome from the ancient world with a naturalistic explanation of what had happened;
- Or uncover the true identities of the Gospel authors, if they weren’t the disciples of Jesus, and expose their myth, regardless of when the documents were published.
Are we suggesting that these assignments were not well within the means of the Roman rulers to investigate and uncover? For I am aware of the a priori assertion that Jesus picked a time and a process that cannot be properly subject to investigation (see Matt Dillahunty’s statement during his debate with Mike Winger, on the topic of “Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable?” at the 35:30-39 mark). Shouldn’t we first understand how the Romans conducted investigations of religious cults before drawing that conclusion?
Fortunately for us, the Roman Historian Livy, who wrote the histories of Rome up until the glorious reign of Caesar Augustus, chronicles how the Romans investigated the Religious Cult of the god Bacchus (see Livy 39.8-19, Penguin translation by H. Bettenson, “The Bacchic ‘Conspiracy’ of 186 BCE”), which can be used as a baseline indicator of how Romans conducted investigations against other religious cults, like Christianity. Remember that during the time of the Republic and the Empire, Rome operated as a well-organized police state, and as such, Livy reported that the Romans were monitoring the religious cult Bacchus closely, and gathering intelligence from witnesses on their activities (Livy 39.12).
Now, pay close attention, as it provides clarity and insight into the thorough, serious, and careful nature of their investigative process. First, a high official is used (the Council in this case) to conduct the interrogation of a former cult member, to corroborate against intelligence the council had received (Livy 39.8). Second, Livy informs us that the witness Hispela was summoned to appear and nearly fainted when she saw the lictors in the vestibule, the consul’s entourage, and the consul himself (Livy 39.12). Livy further reports, the Council informed the witness, that if she could bring herself to tell him the facts, she had no cause for alarm, and she should reveal to them the ceremonies that were habitually performed in the nocturnal rites of the Bacchanalia (Ibid.). Upon hearing this from the council, “the woman was panic-stricken, and such trembling seized every part of her body that for a long time she could not open her mouth” (Ibid.).
Even after her full confession, Livy tells us, “the Council went on to warn her that if she were proved to be lying by the evidence of another witness, she could not expect the same forgiveness or indulgence as she would receive if she made a voluntary confession.” He added that “the man who had heard the story from her had given him a full account of the facts” (Ibid.). The significance of Livy’s details on Rome’s investigation of the Bacchi cannot be overstated. There isn’t anything in Livy’s account, which leaves us with any doubt that the council of Rome was not going to gather the intelligence he needed from this witness, or others, to expose the conspiracy of the Bacchi—for that was the power of Rome (Livy 39.14).
The parallels of this case to Rome’s investigation of another religious cult, Christianity, are clear: Rome is again entrusting the gathering of intelligence to high Roman officials; in fact, those seated at the court of the emperor to expose the movement of Christianity. This is why Prefects such as Felix, Festus, and Pilate were interrogating Paul and Jesus (John 18:28-40; Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; Acts 24, 25, 26). The empire was very concerned about insurrection (see S. Dyson, “Native Revolts in the Roman Empire,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 20.2/3 (1971), 239-274). And Felix, according to Josephus, had also suppressed the messianic movement of the Egyptian prophet ( see Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-262) and ordered the assassination of the high priest Jonathan (see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.5). So, it comes as no surprise why the Prefect Felix interrogated Paul on two separate occasions (Acts of the Apostles 25-26).
Hegesippus chronicles that the emperor Domitian dreaded the advent of Christ as Herod had, and had his spies locate the grandsons of Jude who were of the family of Jesus in order to interrogate them (see Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 126 [3.19-20]); the same modus operandi is evinced in Livy’s investigation of the Bacchi (Livy 39.8-19, Penguin translation by H. Bettenson, Ibid.). Remember, in each and every one of these interrogations, the witness could be turned over to torture, or put to death at any time. Recall, this is why Hispela reeked of fear at the sight of the consul (Livy 39.12). Pilate emphasized this reality to Jesus when he said, “Do You not know that I have authority to release You and authority to crucify You?” (John 19:10-18).
Pliny had established procedures for interrogating Christians and judged it necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female Christian deaconesses, as we learn in his letter to Emperor Trajan (Pliny, Letters 10.96-97). All that was needed to falsify the Resurrection was just one credible witness, whose testimony could be corroborated if it was a hoax; which was all within the means of the Rome Empire to uncover (Livy 39.8-19, Penguin translation by H. Bettenson, Ibid.). Yet despite all this immense power, and endless amount of resources, the rulers of the Roman Empire failed to produce a credible tome establishing that the resurrection or the Gospels were a hoax in its investigation of Christianity.
For when we turn to the positive empirical evidence, we find throughout the Roman Empire, in all the Apostolic Churches, the same four gospels, in Aramaic, Greek, Copic and Vetus (Old) Latin, naming the same four authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (see Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 134 [3.24-25]), unlike the Gnostics who had different Gospels, naming different authors (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.2). To paraphrase John Chrysostom:
If there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth. Although the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they disagree. Or rather, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, it would be evidence of collusion (St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Matthew, Homily 1, §15-16).
In any normal court of law, independent witnesses that basically agree, that have not colluded on their testimony would be conclusive. As I said, we do know that throughout the Roman Empire, conversions to Christianity were occurring all over the place. It is obvious the Roman Empire had found the truth; that is, the Gospel Truth.
-:-
See Richard Carrier’s response.
-:-
Mr. Sheffield’s title commits the complex question fallacy.
In paragraph 2, line 1, of Mr. Sheffield’s article, “a” (singular) conflicts with “memoranda” (plural).
In paragraph 4, line 6, “Hoax” should be “hoax.”
In the 13th full paragraph (beginning with “Hegesippus”), line 6, “wreaked of” should be “reeked of.”
Mr. Rucker,
I am simply asking a historical question; There doesn’t seen to be anything loaded in the question; Its as if I asked, why did Napoleon lose the battle of Waterloo.
I believe Dr. Carrier touches on this question in a published article on his blog, and else where in his writings, and don’t recall Dr. Carrier referring to such a question as a loaded one…but I could be wrong.
I do appreciate the grammar corrections listed above.
Jonathan Sheffield
Yes, I think the title can be worded that way because it is not the argument, just a title; the argument is in the text, and there doesn’t operate as a complex question fallacy.
Typos fixed.
Typo: “Hispela reeked of fear at the site of the council”. Should this read “… sight of the consul”?
Good catch. I assume so; and just now revised the text.
(Jonathan, if that’s not what you intended, let me know.)
The contention is utterly baffling. Sheffield’s view of Romans seems to me a peculiar “Romans were persecutors of religion” view. Romans were not in the business of refuting (falsifying) religions but of embracing them. And they embraced resurrecting gods as well as non-resurrecting gods. The Roman Empire became Christian, didn’t it?
They did not have more reason to refute the resurrection of Jesus than they had to refute the resurrections of Inanna, Hercules, Osiris, etc. They accepted any and all resurrections. Philo’s cosmic son of God was as acceptable as Paul’s.
Romans were only concerned about messiahs, i.e. violent rebel Jewish leaders who wanted to free Judea from Roman yoke. Too bad the Christian deity used that name. Imagine if a pacifist movement said “Our leader is a jihadist. We are jihadists.” That would alarm authorities.
Josephus wrote a whole book on every messiah, rebel leader, etc. and there is zero mention of the historic Jesus. If this supposed historical messiah totally escaped the notice of a Jewish historian tracking such characters (as well as the notice of Philo and the notice of the 80 contemporary historians) why expect the Roman authorities to know about this character and to refute a claim that does not even matter?
Another point, how would Eusebius know what was forged? He was most likely a forger himself since the Testimonium Flavianum includes a phrase that only he used.
The 4 Gospels were not in every church. On the reverse, each church started with its own. It’s only later that the number vastly increased and then decreased to four. There have been a dozen gospels so this false statement that there were four everywhere is nonsense and utterly wrong.
If conversion is an indicator of truth then Islam is more true since non-muslims are disappearing in the muslim world (from 20 % to 1 % in one century) and Islam is growing faster in Christian countries than the reverse.
The Roman books we have are those that Christians deigned to reproduce. In particular we do not have those that are now partially cited by Christian writers. Absence of evidence is not…
Mr. Lemaire,
Thank you for your comments. Since your opening remarks conveys a similar theme throughout your response, let us begin there:
You stated “Sheffield’s view of the Romans seems to me a peculiar view. Romans were not in the business of refuting religions but of embracing them”
To provide further insight into my arguments, allow us to examine a statement in Paul’s Letter to the Church of Rome. In chapter ten, verse 9, Paul states:
“If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”.
Would the rulers of the Roman empire embrace the idea that Jesus is Lord instead of Caesar is Lord?
The attitude towards such a statement is even reflected in the 19th Chapter of the Gospel according to John where it states:
“Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, we have no king but Caesar”.
One of the several points I was drawing on from Hegesippus report of Domitian’s interview with the grandsons of Jude, was the attitude towards the idea of Christ and his Kingdom from a ruler (Domitian in this case) of the Roman Empire.
Eusebius referring to Hegesippus report writes that the grandsons of Jude was asked specifically about “Christ and his Kingdom, what it was like, and where and when it would appear”.
The attitude in this report about Domitian does not reflect a warm embrace by the empire, but a serious concern to Domitian’s earthly Kingdom.
Mr. Lemaire, I provided Livy’s report on the Bacchic Conspiracy and Pliny’s letter to Trajan to demonstrate the attitude of the Empire towards religious groups, especially Christianity.
Mr. Lemaire, you have also asked “how would Eusebius know what was forged?”.
While I would not put Eusebius on the same level with the Italian humanist Lorenza Valla in this area of study, Eusebius does provide identifying marks to its forged nature.
Eusebius explicitly states in book 1, chapter 9 of his histories that:
“the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.
For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign”.
Hopefully, my comments have addressed some of your concerns. Thanks.
There are a number of errors here about Roman history and practice I’ve already answered in my opening rebuttal.
Additionally to what I point of there: there was nothing unusual about calling gods Kyrios (Lord). The term was also in wide use for angels and God and other figures already by Jews. Romans didn’t care. See entry on the term in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels for example, pp. 526-34. (For more detail see Akira Endo’s 1950 dissertation Kyrios in Paul: Studies on the Relationship Between Kyrios in the Emperor Worship and the Mystery Religions and Kyrios in Paul.)
Hardly Mr Sheffield though I thank you for your interest in my comment.
You cannot infer from one investigation of a mystery cult that Romans must have investigated Paul’s Brothers of the Lord movement as well. But there might be an interesting parallel to be made here of these two mystery cults. I can believe that Romans would investigate disruptive mystery cults but the fact they did it for Bacchic cult does not prove they did it for the Christic cult.
You misconstrue Popper’s “falsifiability,” which is designed to recognize proper theories from false ones, not to establish facts.
To have a proper theory you need first to have facts, and afterward propose a falsifiable theory accounting for them. You do not have the fact that Romans investigated any messianic cult in the 30s, nor even the fact they would refute a resurrection if they heard about one.
So the resurrection theory that would account for these (absent) facts is not born from any observation as it should be but from a previously existing religious belief. Conjuring facts from a theory is not the proper way to go.
Your unwarranted theory is also not phrased in such a way as to be falsifiable. Your starting question is an argument from silence and supposedly designed to be unfalsifiable. But if you intend it not being falsifiable then it cannot establish the resurrection to be a proper theory and even less a fact.
If you want to use Popper you should do like those who (wrongly) read Popper as claiming there are two sorts of knowledge, religious and scientific. Religious “knowledge” is based on (unwarranted) certainties, scientific knowledge is based on doubt.
“Josephus” is not to be believed because what Eusebius claims to be from Josephus is most likely from Eusebius. I could put more faith in Eusebius if he had no vested interest and if a typical phrase of his was not in the interpolation about Jesus.
Given the varying dates that the earliest Christian writers gave to the death of Jesus, I’m wholly unmoved by Eusebius’ argument.
Christians have a long pattern as forgers, given the number of apocryphal writings that were made, including the other Gospels I mentioned to rebuke your thoroughly unsubstantiated “4 gospels everywhere” claim.
Given the curiously missing chapters on the first century in various history books, which Christian copyists have failed to record, there is an established pattern from Christians on rewriting their own history both by addition and omission.
Sheffield wrote:
“Unless the NSA has video surveillance of Muhammad’s conversation with the Angel Gabriel from the 7th century, or we can download the satellite images of the monkey that threw down the fruit of the bo tree onto Buddha’s head that caused him to see the light, we don’t have standard criteria to falsify those inner experiences.”
Response: On a related note I wonder if the NSA has video surveillance of a talking donkey and zombies that wander into town as reported in the Bible.
OU812INVU
My opening presentation was not an attempt to solve the metaphysical problem of whether or not miracles can occur, or an inquiry into talking donkeys and zombie sightings.
Instead, my thought process followed Popper’s maxim of falsifiability in asking why the rulers of the Roman Empire were unable to falsify the resurrection account.
Thanks for your comments.
I am one hundred percent for any forum that funds Dr. Carrier’s important work and scholarship, and I appreciate your obvious lifetime devotion to a rather dubious history, theology, and highly-questionable epistemology.
I’ll take Dr. Carrier’s admonition that doubt is an insufficient argument against “ridiculous propositions” even though Thomas Jefferson once wrote that ridicule was not merely acceptable, but the “only” weapon” against such ludicrous pseudoscience.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ―Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp (30 July 1816), denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity – 1810s
Now, this might be an Appeal to Authority fallacy as it was intended to discredit the belief in the “Holy Trinity” and not resurrection, per se. However one cannot help but consider the two theological concepts as equally improbable, if not, wholly impossible.
Second Century Roman scholars aside, modern scholars, physicists, and scientists as Dr. Carrier and Dr. Sean Carroll have demonstrated with scientific precision how resurrection, reincarnation, and various after life scenarios are, indeed, highly-unlikely, if not, scientifically impossible as their validation would imply the entire negation of The Standard Model of Particles and The Laws of Physics combined,
Even if one accepts that Roman scholars and scientists had heard of the obscure phantom cult figure of Jesus, and his horrific demise, the claim that he was resurrected would not have presented itself as a contemporary phenomenon. We do have irrefutable evidence from the historical historical record that resurrections and zombifications were commonplace in many myths, mystery cults, and cultural superstitions of the period.
See: http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/ancient-greeks-were-afraid-of-zombies-150622.htm
There was no immediate scientific need to investigate the curious case of Jesus because there was no overwhelming need to investigate what was a commonly accepted mythological motif. In fact, it would have been even more curious of there was no resurrection.
Your attempt to apply Popper’s Criterion of scientific falsifiability to the ancient Romans, and Jesus’s alleged reappearance strikes me as a non-sequitur fallacy – the equivalent of scouring through an auto mechanic’s manual for culinary recipes.
Alif, please make a better effort to spell. There is no excuse for this. Your computer will spell correct for you. You are only making your comments difficult to impossible to read.
I appreciate the discussion and enjoy the command of references and citations, but it strikes me overall as tantamount to arguing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Why would the Romans be compelled to go out of their way to refute the resurrection of a Jewish dissident named Jesus if such an individual never existed, nor had anyone heard of him outside of a few scattered mystery cults and itinerant preachers of that period?
Besides, the whole phenomenon of resurrection was not a terribly novel one. Plutarch writes extensively of various literary characters from Greek and Roman literature who were similarly “resurrected” (Romulus/ Proculus, Aristeas the Proconnesian, Cleomides the
Astypalaean, Alcema, etc.)
“Hence it was that Suetonius* speaking in the language of his party who called the Christians “Genus hominum superstionis maleficae, ‘the men of the magical superstition.'” Seuton. Neron C 16
“Why would the Romans …”
That’s pretty much the question this whole debate is about.
But yes, almost all Christian apologetics is just debating angels on pins.
P.S. But please note I am assuming for the sake of argument throughout this debate that Jesus existed and was executed by Pontius Pilate. Though I personally doubt both, I don’t regard that doubt to be an effective counter-apologetic.
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
Thank you, Mr. Sheffield, I look forward to your future exchanges with Dr. Carrier.
Before I began reading Sheffield’s (is Dr. the correct title?) I did a quick search for the term ‘fire.’ As in the many fires that lead to loss of records in Rome, such as the fire in 192 during the reign of Commodus that resulted in an almost total loss of the Imperial archives.
Seeing the absence of any acknowledgement that not all records from antiquity survived even IN antiquity, I wonder if he intends to mention why he would expect such a disproof of Christianity to survive even if it had been produced in the first place.
I had much the same thought. Among several other possible explanations that Mr. Sheffield ignores is the possibility that a refutation could have existed, but was destroyed by the Christians once they became the official state religion. This doesn’t seem likely to have happened, but it’s possible.
Sheffield does not have a Ph.D. He runs a Christian Apologetics YouTube channel and graciously funds any debate I conduct with him.
On those fires, I also hyperlinked my remarks on this in my reply today to a historical page on the fires that burned Rome.
It’s worth noting that it’s standard knowledge in the field of ancient library studies to remark that most ancient records and books were lost to deacquisition or accidental fires, the latter far more than we have extant records of occurring, as it’s believed they commonly afflicted ancient libraries and archives. But deacquisition, even more so. Most records simply weren’t preserved very long; once it was no longer needed, it was too expensive to maintain and house and would just be thrown away (most papyri finds in fact come from the very garbage dumps they were tossed in). That’s why we have almost none of the vast quantity of records ancient Romans produced, on any subject whatever.
So even if it was granted for the sake of argument that an ancient Roman COULD have produced such a rebuttal, and that one actually DID produce one, it would be rather surprising for one to survive to the Dark Ages and the onset of complete Christian control over the survival and transmission of documents from antiquity.
And even less reason to believe that such a rebuttal would survive from the Dark Ages to modern times.
On the differing survival likelihoods of various kinds of “rebuttals” and other sources on early Christianity, see my extended discussion in Chapter 8 of On the Historicity of Jesus. Some things would be likely to survive at least in mention, had they existed (and so we can say the absence of any extant mention makes it unlikely they ever existed at all); but other things would not be likely to survive even in mention (so we can’t confidently say they didn’t exist). Pretty much any official documentation by Pilate would be in the “not” category (see my discussion of the “Pilate’s Records” problem in Proving History, pp. 219-24).
Benjamin,
Thank you for your comments.
In regards to your question:
“Why he (Sheffield) would expect such a disproof of Christianity to survive even if it had been produced in the first place”.
Consider this Benjamin, we don’t have Celsus treatise “The True Word” which exhibits a scathing attack on Christianity; yet knowledge of Celsus work is demonstrated in Origen of Alexandria writings against Celsus.
The same can be said for the writings of Porphyry of Tyre. While very little has survived antiquity, the writings of Jerome establishes knowledge of the work.
Therefore, writings as such, that attacked Christianity in the examples provided above, elicited a response by Christian apologists.
If such a tome was brought into public notice, it is only natural to assume that contemporary Christian apologists would respond to such an attack in their writings.
It’s clear that Eusebius responded to such a tome brought into public notice by Maximin II in his histories.
Hopefully this helps provide some clarity. Thanks
The difference between the treatises of Celsus and Porphyry and everyday police reports is that the former were intentionally widely published from the start and probably could be found in the library of nearly any city; and the latter were not, and thus could not.
In fact government documents were not typically even made available to the public, they were not preserved beyond the limits of their use, and hardly any copies ever existed, which is why we have almost none of them: the odds of their being lost to fires, wars, and ordinary disposal were extremely high (as we can tell from the ratio of such documents that survive to how many we know existed, which ratio is countless thousands to one).
It is thus decisive that no such document pertaining to Jesus was ever produced, pro or con; not even when Christians literally ran the entire Roman Empire for half a century. Worse, no any activity that would even produce pertinent documents is known to the author of Acts.
All evidence establishes: the Romans didn’t care and there’s no evidence any pertinent records survived even the first century of the cult’s existence.
Thank you for your reply. I want to ask a clarifying question because my initial response to your post was to ask “so you’re saying” and I want to confirm that such is your actual position before I proceed.
Also I tried to post a variant on this reply earlier but I think the Internet ate it.
Regardless, is it your intention to address the issue of low rate of document survival both FROM and WITHIN antiquity?
It seems to me, and again, please correct me if I’m wrong, that your argument is essentially “If a Roman scholar had written a rebuttal to Christianity, it is highly likely that this rebuttal or mention of it would have survived in the record. No such rebuttal or mention of it survives. Ergo no Roman ever wrote a rebuttal to Christianity.”
I’m not sure how the examples you produced support this argument. I’m willing to grant that Celsus and Porphyry wrote critiques of Christianity. We don’t have those critiques. We only know that they wrote them. But we don’t know that only they wrote them, if you take my meaning.
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
Note Sheffield’s rebuttal has been received and will go live this week.
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.
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.”
Grace to you Mr. Sheffield.
Regarding you thinking Eusebius was an authority on the subject (Jesus’ supposed resurrection), Eusebius’ related writing on the subject was finally fully translated into English 5 years ago:
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Eusebius_Gospel_problems_and_solutions_2010.pdf
Towards the end Eusebius writes: [Page 123]
“Mark and Luke did not even mention the incidents in John and Matthew—I mean, of course, the appearances of the Saviour—but left them for their betters, Matthew and John, to tell, while themselves telling the secondary incidents, and filling in what the others had passed over in silence.27”
Eusebius is saying that “Mark” did not describe any post-resurrection sighting. You will be skeptical of this so go ahead and read all of the surrounding text to see that that is what Eusebius is saying.
My question to you then is why do you think that Eusebius thought “Mark” did not describe any post-resurrection sighting?
P.S. Be aware, Joseph, that Sheffield and I had a whole extended debate on exactly that question: Was the Long Ending of Mark Original? A Serial Debate with Jonathan Sheffield.
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
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?
Mr. Sheffield,
You state, “It’s interesting that Tacitus, one of the greatest historians of the Roman Empire, who wrote specifically on the period in question, referring to the the extreme penalty Jesus suffered at the hands of Pilate, and the early Christians in Rome (Tacitus, Annals 15.44) did not provide a historiographic narrative falsifying the resurrection event.”
Tacitus Annals 15.44 only mentions a “pernicious (or “most mischievous” in other translations) superstition”, there is no mention of what the superstition is and specifically no mention of a resurrection event. There is no mention of Jesus, only of Christus. No source is given. I don’t find it surprising that Tacitus did not provide a historiographic narrative falsifying a pernicious or most mischievous superstition. Those were a dime a dozen in his day. His derogatory use of ‘pernicious’ or ‘most mischievous’ in regards to the superstition plausibly leads the reader (or me at least) to the conclusion that the superstition is not thought to be credible by Tacitus and thus not worthy of further investigation as to its legitimacy.
What source(s) do you think Tacitus used for 15.44 and 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.
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
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. Sheffield, I want to understand your argument better. If you are reading comments still, please let me know if I’ve captured things accurately.
It seems you would agree with the following:
So your argument is ultimately inference (which is fine) based several lines you see as coming to a specific point: Romans investigated the resurrection and could not refute it. And the arguments you provide appear to be the following:
Can you explain why this isn’t a fallacious argument from silence? In none of the evidence you provide does anyone claim investigation by the Romans, or reference a document to that effect that we should have reason to believe existed.
Of the evidence you provide, the closest things to achieving that end appear to be Justin Martyr and Hegesippus. If Martyr called for release of documents, it could imply that they might exist, but he was also doing so over 100 years after the events would have taken place. How would he even know if such documents existed in the first place, much less that they would STILL exist when he called for them? Hegesippus, similarly seems to say he carried out an interrogation of Jesus’ surviving family. But there’s no evidence outside that claim itself. Assuming the interrogation actually took place, we don’t know what was asked, what was said, or why family members over 100 years later should be able to provide reliable information.