Holy balls. Yep. A dude actually said this. Just recently, a Godfearing San Diegan by the name of Francesco Scinico (credentials unknown but probably non-existent) Tweeted: “There’s no contemporary historical evidence for Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius—three of the ‘five good emperors’ of a Roman Empire at its apex that supposedly (according to atheists) kept ‘excellent’ records. Well, where are these records?” Evidently in an attempt to argue that since we nevertheless believe they existed, we should therefore agree Jesus did.

So I collect these. I call them The Argument from Spartacus. Because you’ll find links to every other example I’ve written on in the first paragraph of my article Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus? (5 July 2015). But I break down why these arguments never work in my follow-up article So What About Hannibal, Then? (25 February 2018).

This is a particularly stupid one. It’s comparable to attempts to say the same of Julius Caesar and Tiberius. Ignoring that we have numerous contemporary coins and buildings and busts attesting to all three Great Emperors, Trajan (98 to 117 A.D.), Hadrian (117-138 A.D.), and Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.), and ample archaeology corroborating their works, reign, and impact on the world. None of which we have for Jesus.

But this guy’s argument is even worse than that. As we’ll see.

Scinico also confuses two different claims about evidence from the Empire. Romans did indeed keep excellent records, and produced voluminous correspondence and literature about contemporary persons and events, much of which interested people then could have consulted (and thus quoted) regarding a figure like Jesus (see my sober survey in Ch. 8.3-4 of On the Historicity of Jesus). But Scinico confuses that with a very different claim no one makes: that anything more than a fragment of those records survive today. That we often don’t have them is true; that they therefore didn’t even exist is false.

That difference matters. But I needn’t elaborate on it here. Instead I’ll just shoot down the even stupider claim that we don’t even have surviving contemporary records of these men.

Trajan

Probably the best collection and discussion of the vast evidence we have for Trajan is Julian Bennett’s Trajan: Optimus Princeps (Routledge 2000). But even that is incomplete. Yet more is collected in E. Mary Smallwood’s Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge University 2011). And even that is incomplete. But here’s a sample.

We have an extensive correspondence between Trajan and his appointed governor of Bythinia in 110 A.D., Pliny the Younger (the entirety of Book 10 of Pliny’s Letters). That means we not only have an extensive eyewitness discussion of him, but Trajan’s own writings. We have neither for Jesus. We also have an extensive speech in praise of Trajan written by Pliny, the Panegyricus. We have nothing like it for Jesus. Tacitus, who also served under Trajan, wrote of him twice in the Agricola (§3 and §44); Appian likewise, a boy during Trajan’s life, attests to Trajan’s hometown and accession to emperor in The Spanish War (7.38) and The Civil War (13.90); his contemporary Epictetus cites Trajan as an exemplary emperor and thus coiner of good money in contrast to Nero in his Discourses (4.5); his contemporary Plutarch even addressed his Sayings of Autocrats to Trajan (not only in the very title, but also in it’s first line). Phlegon, another contemporary, attests to Trajan’s career (Book of Marvels 2.25). None of that exists for Jesus.

But we needn’t rest on that.

Inscriptions attesting Trajan’s existence include the ubiquitously replicated Fasti Consulares, stone lists of magistracies through the second century and beyond (such as but not only the Fasti Ostienses of 175 A.D.) that derived their pedigree from earlier and ultimately contemporary lists far more widely available then than now (see A.R. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain, pp. 70-71; other pages survey the evidence from these same consular inscriptions for Hadrian and Pius as well). But that’s not all. We have tons (pun intended) of direct, autograph records on stone confirming Trajan’s existence. The following is but a tiny sample:

• We have Pliny the Younger’s epitaph, both commissioned and carved by contemporaries of Trajan, celebrating the fact that Pliny was appointed “legate with consular power in accordance with a decree of the Senate by Emperor Trajan” (adapted from Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, p. 269; translating Corpus Inscriptionum Latinum or CIL V 5262).
• We have a contemporary priestly dedication wishing Trajan success, declaring “the Arval Brethren proclaim vows for the safety, return, and victory of Emperor Trajan” and to Jupiter “we pray” that “you will cause Emperor Trajan” to “return safe and victorious from those places and provinces to which he is going” back to “the city of Rome” etc. (Ibid., p. 519; translating CIL VI 2074).
• We have Trajan’s own decree, recorded on stone at his commission in 106 A.D., declaring “The Emperor Trajan…acclaimed victorious in war six times, elected consul five times, father of his country, has granted citizenship before completion of military service to the infantrymen and cavalrymen whose names appear below” for “having dutifully and faithfully discharged his Dacian campaign” (Ibid., pp. 487-87; translating L’Année Épigraphique 1944 no. 57).
• We have Trajan’s dedications to his own works, such as an inscription he erected around 100 A.D. for erecting his military road that would lead to Trajan’s Bridge across the Danube completed a few years later, declaring “Emperor…Trajan…invested for the fourth time as Tribune, Father of the Fatherland, Consul for the third time, has made this road by excavating mountain rocks and using wooden logs” (adapted from “Trajan’s Plaque,” translating CIL III 8267).
• Another road building dedication survives from 111 A.D. in the Middle East, declaring “Emperor Trajan…opened and paved this new road from the border of Syria to the Red Sea, after reducing Arabia to the status of a province” through his appointed legate (adapted from Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, p. 73; translating CIL III 14149).
• Trajan or his colleagues carved his name into many like monuments, from bridges and kiosks to columns and arches. Dozens of inscriptions and plaques attest his establishing a welfare system across the empire. Many inscriptions likewise attest his family. His soldiers’ epitaphs even mention him, for example on the monument of one of his personal bodyguards, Gaius Arrius Clemens, we learn that Clemens was “awarded honors by Emperor Trajan with necklaces, armbands, and ornaments for his performance in the Dacian War” (CIL II 5646). Eyewitness, autograph attestation.

There are endlessly more.

We have coins, too; and not just coins with his image and name on them as was common for all living rulers, but coins that demonstrate his historicity in even more particularity. For example, a bronze coin minted in 104 A.D. (making this not a distant copy of a text but a contemporary original document) that is dedicated “To Emperor Trajan” who has been elected “Consul Five Times” and held other offices and titles, the “Roman Senate and People” offered this coin series “to their best prince, by decree of the Senate.” And another of 116 A.D. dedicated “by decree of the Senate” to “Emperor Trajan” for having “Subdued Armenia and Mesopotamia to the power of the Roman people.” (Both adapted from Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, p. 633.)

We also have papyri—meaning actual autographs, not descendants of copies like most other texts. Emperors were always named in correspondence and documents to date their composition. For example, in Trajan’s case, in this recovered latter from Gemellus to Sabinus, in this contract for labor, in this bank order, in this loan receipt, in this legal declaration, in this concession permit, in this bank deposit slip, in this water service report, in this military assignment dispatch, in this military status report, in this birth certificate, and even (ironically) in this notice for the upkeep of a records office, in which is declared the very need of keeping large stores of archived documents. So much for the Romans not keeping excellent records! And this, being only what survived to today, is just a tiny fraction of what they had then; in fact, only a tiny fraction even of what we still have—as surviving papyri with imperial identifications actually number in the thousands. Nothing alike for Jesus.

And note, this includes not just papyri dated by and thus to the reign of Trajan; but papyri specifically about Trajan. For example, we have a contemporary copy of a letter Trajan himself wrote to the city of Alexandria (P.Oxy. 3022). We have nothing like this for Jesus. We likewise have a 103 A.D. declaration of recruits into the army of “our Emperor Trajan” (P.Oxy. 1022). We likewise have an official announcement from and about the very year of the death (and claimed ascension into heaven) of Emperor Trajan and the accession of his successor Hadrian (P.Giss. 3). To whom we now turn.

But step back a moment and survey: “No contemporary historical evidence for Trajan?” Really?

Hadrian

Indeed, among the papyri we have that attest to Trajan’s existence is another original copy of another official announcement of Hadrian’s succession, which naturally refers to Trajan as well, as having just passed. We likewise have carved in stone by Trajan’s widow Plotina a letter to the Epicurean school at Athens, to which is likewise appended letters from Hadrian as well, carved at his commission. Almost as much an autograph original as one could get (further excerpts of which are available in Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, p. 209). Similarly, Trajan’s private guard Arrius Clemens, whom we mentioned earlier, lived on to so serve under Hadrian, too, and on that same monument attests to having been “awarded honors by Emperor Hadrian with an untipped spear and golden crown.” Again. Eyewitness, autograph attestation. Contemporary documents.

Nothing even remotely like this exists for Jesus. And that’s just a drop in the bucket for Hadrian.

The best books surveying the vast evidence we have for Hadrian include A.R. Birley’s Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (Routledge 1997), Mary Boatwright’s Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton University 2002), and Anthony Everitt’s 2009 popular survey Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome. Plus, again, a large sample of evidence in E. Mary Smallwood’s Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge University 2011). Again, restricting ourselves to just “contemporary historical evidence,” the following is just a sample.

Textually we have an eyewitness testimony from his good friend Arrian in the surviving introduction to Arrian’s Journeys through the Black Sea, which begins intimately discussing his personal travels with Hadrian like this…

Arrian to his emperor, Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus.

We come in the course of our voyage to Trapezus, a Greek city in a maritime station, a colony of Sinope, as we are informed by Xenophon, the celebrated historian. We surveyed the Euxine Sea with the greatest pleasure, as we viewed it from the same spot whence both Xenophon and yourself have formerly observed it.

Two altars of rough stone are still standing there. […] Your statue, which is there, has merit in the idea of the figure, and in the design, as it represents you pointing towards the sea; but it bears no resemblance to the original, and the execution is in other respects indifferent. Send therefore a statue worthy to be called yours, and of a similar design to one which is there at present, as the situation is well-calculated for perpetuating, by these means, the memory of any illustrious person.

Surviving fragments of Arrian’s tactical treatises also attest to his knowing Hadrian personally and discussing tactical history and policy with him (see Everett Wheeler, “The Occasion of Arrian’s ‘Tactica'” in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 1978). Nothing like this exists for Jesus. Appian, another contemporary, likewise attests to Hadrian’s hailing from the Roman city of Italica in Spain and subsequently becoming emperor (Spanish Wars 7.38); and attests him and his policies elsewhere (Civil War 1.38), including Hadrian’s excavation of a lost shrine to Pompey (Ibid. 2.86) and his destruction of Jerusalem (Syrian Affairs 10.50). Nothing the like for Jesus.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto gives eyewitness testimony to the existence and character and dealings of Hadrian in one of his letters to Marcus Aurelius (Letter to Marcus Aurelius 2.2, July of 143 A.D.). The astronomer Ptolemy, who lived through the reign of Hadrian, dates events by that fact. And Marcus Aurelius himself, a toddler when Hadrian lived but his grandson by adoption, knew many personal acquaintances of Hadrian’s and also attests to Hadrian’s life, deeds, and death in his Meditations (4.33, 8.5, 8.25, 8.37, 10.27). Apuleius, who was a boy during Hadrian’s life, likewise attests to Hadrian’s existence and writings in his Defense 1.11.

The Institutes of Gaius, a legal handbook written during the reigns of Hadrian, Pius, and Aurelius by an eyewitness to all three, also attests to the existence of Hadrian, and to having read his letters and decrees, and knowing facts and circumstances of his composing them (in Book 1: 1.7, 1.30, 1.47, 1.55, 1.73, 1.77, 1.80-84, 1.92-94, 1.115a; in Book 2: 2.57, 2.112, 2.143, 2.163, 2.221, 2.280, 2.285, 2.287; in Book 3: 3.73, 3.121-122). Aulus Gellius, a boy in Hadrian’s time, attests to his life and deeds several times (Attic Nights 3.16, 11.15, 13.22, 16.13). Likewise Galen (e.g. Against Those Who Write about Types 7.478; On Antidotes 14.64.9; On My Own Books 19.18).

The tour guide Pausanias, who grew up under Hadrian, declares “within my own time the emperor Hadrian was extremely religious…and contributed very much to the happiness of his various subjects” and defeated the Hebrews and gave benefactions to many cities. Indeed the contemporary Pausanias attests not only to Hadrian’s existence but also his deeds and the quality of his building projects and the sculptures portraying his likeness, and more (e.g., Tour of Greece, 1.3.2, 1.5.5, 1.18.6, 1.18.9, 1.20.7, 1.24.7, 1.36.3, 1.42.5, 1.44.6, 2.3.5, 2.17.6, 5.12.6, 6.16.4, 6.19.9, 8.8.12, 8.9.7, 8.10.2, 8.11.8, 8.19.1, 8.22.3, 10.35.4, 10.35.6). The fabulist Phlegon, a contemporary of Hadrian (and by later accounts even his freedman) also attests to Hadrian’s career (Book of Marvels 2.25, 2.29) and even to having been in his company and sharing experiences with him (Ibid., 3.97). We even have a fragment of Hadrian’s own autobiography!

Again, we have nothing like any of this for Jesus.

And once again we needn’t rely on texts. We have, once again, that mass of contemporary documentation on coins. And, once again, literally tons of inscriptions…

Athens alone, Hadrian’s favorite city which he visited often, is full of contemporaneous inscriptions at length attesting to and discussing Hadrian, including municipal decrees, and inscribed statues, altars, arches, baths, temples, libraries, agoras, aqueducts, and theatres. Numerous examples of statements about Hadrian’s benefactions and deeds and other facts of his life, autograph attestation by eyewitnesses, sometimes commissioned by Hadrian himself (and thus we have his own words). Indeed one of these inscriptions extensively documents Hadrian’s life and career.

And that’s just one city. Inscriptions dedicated to and by Hadrian or discussing him contemporaneously span cities across the whole Empire. Just as for Trajan. For instance we have an inscription dedicated to Hadrian by his own soldiers in Jerusalem. We have numerous inscriptions attesting to his victory and honors in the Bar Kochba war. We not only have Hadrian’s Wall, but an inscription attesting to Hadrian having ordered its construction. We have his grave with inscriptions attesting him and his family by his adopted son and successor Antoninus Pius. We have a stone Tablet with a contemporary Greek transcription of a Letter from Emperor Hadrian to the Common Assembly of Macedonians (136-137 A.D.). We even have a speech of Hadrian himself preserved in stone by those who heard it in what is now modern Algeria, an autograph eyewitness record! (In fact five speeches; select excerpts can be found translated in Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, pp. 460-62.)

We have nothing even remotely like any of that for Jesus.

We could add hundreds more. Another tiny sample from Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2) includes a stone-inscribed copy of a letter sent by Hadrian in 125 A.D. establishing a music festival in what’s now the modern nation of Turkey, erected during Hadrian’s life along with an elaborate set of instructions for conducting and maintaining the festival—thus an entire town attests to Hadrian’s existence and power to enforce decrees (pp. 264-68). In this Hadrian declares:

Emperor…Hadrian, son of the deified Trajan…during [my] eighth year…to the magistrates, council and people of Temessus, greeting. I approve Gaius Julius Demosthenes for his generosity towards you, and I confirm the cultural competition which he promised you. He himself will pay the costs from his own resources. And the penalties which he has fixed for those violating the provisions of his bounty are to be valid. … Farewell. Sent from Ephesus on the 29th of September.

Likewise a state grant from Hadrian to the city of Stratonicea (also in modern Turkey):

Emperor…Hadrian…son of the deified Trajan…during [my] eleventh year…to the magistrates, council and people of Stratonicea-Hadrianopolis, greeting. You appear to me to be requesting what is just and necessary for your recently constituted city. Therefore I grant you the revenues derived from your territory; and as for the house of Tiberius Claudius Socrates which is in the city, Socrates shall either repair it or give it up to one of the inhabitants, so that it may not become dilapidated through age and neglect. I have sent these orders also to [my various agents, employees, and officials]. Claudius Candidus came as your envoy, and he is to be paid his travel allowance, unless he undertook it at his own expense. Farewell. Sent from Rome on the 1st of March.

That inscription then declares, “I, Claudius Candidus, delivered this letter to Lollius Rusticus, the chief magistrate in the assembly, on the 14th of May.” So here we have not only a contemporary copy of Hadrian’s own writing, but the declaration and signature of the eyewitness himself who spoke with Hadrian and carried his letter back to the city for inscribing in stone. Can you imagine if we had anything like this for Jesus?

We likewise have inscriptions erected by Hadrian’s employees enforcing his laws and benefactions in his own lifetime that mention him and his role, thus attesting his existence (pp. 69, 102, 96-99). Including many commissioned by Hadrian himself regarding his restoration of roads and bridges and cities ravaged by his own military campaigns (pp. 332-33) or by age or neglect (pp. 74-75). And letters he wrote to various officials, such as to the Barca family in Cyrene, as published by Joyce Reynolds in “Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and the Cyrenaican Cities,” Journal of Roman Studies 68 (1978): 111-21. And more.

And yes, we also have papyri—again, actual autographs, not descendants of copies like most other texts. Emperors were always named in correspondence and documents to date their composition. For example, in Hadrian’s case, in this will revokement, in this slave contract, in this land lease, in this rent-sharing agreement, in this protection contract, in this rent receipt, in these court minutes, in this leave request, in this death certificate, in this slave registration, in this commercial correspondence, in this trade registry, in this labor certification, in this birth certificate, and in this pedigree certification (which even references attached census records also taken under Hadrian). And on and on.

We get even more detail sometimes, such as in this application for reduction of rent, where we are also told “our lord Hadrian Caesar, among his other indulgences, has ordained that Royal land, public land, and domain land shall be cultivated at rents corresponding to their various values and not in accordance with the old order,” and thus they appeal for a reduction in rent in the second year of Hadrian’s reign. We also have an officially certified (analogous to a notarized) copy made in the 170s A.D. of a document written under, and thus dated by, the reign of Hadrian; that’s a sworn eyewitness attestation to a contemporary document attesting to the existence and reign of Hadrian. Even better, we have a civil complaint written in the 190s by persons who testify as eyewitnesses to the existence and actions of Hadrian prior. Nothing the like for Jesus.

We also have a papyrus transcribed in Greek in 119 A.D. that reads literally as follows (Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, pp. 480-81; also available here):

Copy of a letter, translated from the Latin, of Emperor…Hadrian…posted in the third consulship of Publius Aelius [i.e. Hadrian himself] and Rusticus…at the headquarters of the winter camp of Legion III Cyrenaica and Legion XXII Deioteriana on August 4, which is Mesore 2 [in the Egyptian calendar]:

I am aware, my dear Rammius [i.e. Hadrian’s prefect of Egypt], that those whom their parents acknowledged as their offspring during their period of military service have been debarred from succession to their paternal property, and this was not considered harsh, since the parents had acted contrary to military discipline. But for my own part I am very glad to introduce a precedent for interpreting more liberally the quite stern rule established by the emperors before me. Therefore, whereas offspring acknowledged during the period of military service are not legal heirs of their fathers, nevertheless I rule that they, too, can claim possession of property in accordance with that part of the edict by which this right is given also to blood relatives. This grant of mine it will be your duty to make clearly known to both my soldiers and my veterans, not for the sake of seeming to exalt me to them, but in order that they may avail themselves of this privilege if they are unaware of it.

And we have surviving declarations resulting from this decree that mention Hadrian—and subsequent ones naming Pius (e.g., Ibid., pp. 481-82). We likewise have papyrus documents from soldiers who served under Hadrian mentioning the fact (e.g., Ibid., p. 487). And many other examples of Edicts and Decrees of Hadrian, preserving his own words, identifying him as author, and printed during his life (e.g., Ibid., p. 315). Whole collections even: e.g. as studied by William Gray in “New Light from Egypt on the Early Reign of Hadrian” in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 40.1 (October 1923), pp. 14-29.

Indeed, so many contemporary documents survive, that in his 2008 OSU dissertation, historian Demetrios Kritsotakis could analyze the logistics and personnel of Hadrian’s whole entourage as he traveled through Egypt—because it generated a ton of official and mercantile documentation all across the province (“Hadrian and the Greek East: Imperial Policy and Communication”). And the documentary record of Hadrian’s empire-wide postmortem deification of his boyfriend, likewise (see the 2014 Ohio University thesis of Tatiana Eileen Fox, “The Cult of Antinous and the Response of the Greek East to Hadrian’s Creation of a God”).

So. “No contemporary historical evidence for Hadrian.” Really?

Pius

Emperor Antoninus Pius, the man succeeded by the more famed Marcus Aurelius, is likewise just as attested as the other two. I hardly need belabor the point by now. You see where this is going. Yep. We have that Mausoleum where he was buried, built by Pius himself, and inscribed many times by and to Pius. We have a monument built in his honor by his sons, giving autograph, eyewitness testimony to his life. He’s on those same consular inscriptions. And he too shares attestation with his predecessor—as for example in this inscription, an autograph text commissioned by the man himself:

Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Augustus Pius, consul for the third time, year two of his tribunician power, father of the fatherland, completed and dedicated the aqueduct which was begun in New Athens by his father, the divine Hadrian.

(CIL III 549)

Even of contemporary texts we have way more than for Jesus.

We have several letters from Marcus Cornelius Fronto to Antoninus Pius (e.g., Letters to Antoninus 3, c. 154-156 A.D.; Letters to Antoninus 5, c. 148-149 A.D.; Letters to Antoninus 8, c. 153-154 A.D.; Letters to Antoninus 9, c. 157-161 A.D.). We also have letters written by Antoninus Pius to Fronto! (e.g., Antoninus to Fronto 6, c. 148-149 A.D.) We have nothing like either for Jesus. In a fragment we have of Hadrian’s autobiography is likewise a letter Hadrian wrote to Pius, eyewitness attestation again.

The astronomer Ptolemy, who lived into the reign of Pius, dates events by that fact. The Institutes of Gaius, a legal handbook written during the reigns of Hadrian, Pius, and Aurelius by an eyewitness to all three, also attests to the existence of Pius, and to having read his letters and decrees, and knowing facts and circumstances of his composing them (in Book 1: 1.53, 1.74, 1.102; and in Book 2: 2.120, 2.126, 2.149a, 2.151, 2.195). The medical scientist Galen reached his thirties by the time of Antoninus’s death and often attests to his existence and deeds (e.g., Against Those Who Write about Types 7.478; On Antidotes 14.64.9; On My Own Books 19.18). Aelius Aristides attests to his existence (Orations, Jebb page 281). Artemidorus attests to his existence (Dreamology 1.26). Justin Martyr addressed his Defense of Christianity to him. Another contemporary, Pausanias, has a whole chapter on the man (Tour of Greece, 8.43), which he wrote during the life of his successor, Marcus Aurelius (the “second” Antoninus).

Marcus Aurelius, his son by adoption and successor, also attests to Pius’s life, deeds, and death in his Meditations (e.g., 4.33, 8.25, 10.27), having known him personally and been a part of his family. Indeed, Aurelius there even gives us a first-hand account of Pius’s manners and character as Aurelius knew in life, writing to himself (6.30):

Do everything as a disciple of Antoninus. Remember his constancy in every act which was conformable to reason, and his evenness in all things, and his piety, and the serenity of his countenance, and his sweetness, and his disregard of empty fame, and his efforts to understand things; and how he would never let anything pass without having first most carefully examined it and clearly understood it; and how he bore with those who blamed him unjustly without blaming them in return; how he did nothing in a hurry; and how he listened not to calumnies, and how exact an examiner of manners and actions he was; and not given to reproach people, nor timid, nor suspicious, nor a sophist; and with how little he was satisfied, such as in his lodging, bed, dress, food, servants; and how laborious and patient; and how he was able on account of his sparing diet to hold out to the evening, not even requiring to relieve himself by any evacuations except at the usual hour; and his firmness and uniformity in his friendships; and how he tolerated freedom of speech in those who opposed his opinions; and the pleasure that he had when any man showed him anything better; and how religious he was without superstition. Imitate all this that thou mayest have as good a conscience, when thy last hour comes, as he had.

We have nothing like any of this for Jesus.

But we needn’t rely on texts again either. We have a mass of contemporary documentation on coins. And inscriptions and papyri.

We have an inscription written and commissioned by Pius himself, that might lie behind a later corrupted version conjured up by Christian apologists (see Christopher P. Jones, “A Letter of Antoninus Pius and an Antonine Rescript concerning Christians” in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 [2018]: 67-76). But the contemporary original, inscribing a letter Pius sent to the people of Ephesus, tells us:

With good fortune. Emperor Caesar, son of the divine Hadrian, grandson of the divine Nerva, T. Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, tribune for the twenty[?]…time, imperator for the second time, consul for the fourth time, father of his country, to the magistrates, council, and assembly of the Ephesians, greeting. It was proper and fitting, both for the province generally and for each of the cities of Asia individually, in consequence of the earthquakes that befell your city and disturbed you, to feel anxious and fearful for you. And it is consistent with this, now that the terror has passed and nothing unpleasant has befallen … to rejoice. …

We have countless inscriptions commissioned by Pius like this. From his mere date stamp on the Firemen’s Barracks of Ostia to reproducing his entire letters and decrees instituting games in Asia Minor in 158 A.D. to actually describing his building projects—for example one from North Africa erected in 152 A.D. tells us:

Emperor…Pius…tribune for the fifteenth time…restored the road through the Numidian Alps when it had broken down because of age, by rebuilding the bridges, draining swamps, and strengthening the sections which had sunk, under the direction of Marcus Valerius Etruscus, his legate with the rank of praetor

Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Vol. 2, p. 74

And on and on. This is just a drop in the bucket. Many, many more inscriptions by, to, or about Pius still survive today. Including the letters to the Barca family mentioned above also for Hadrian published by Joyce Reynolds. And this bronze plaque with which a naval officer preserved Antoninus’s discharge and commemoration of service letter. And on and on.

And there are again countless papyri, actual documents, that survive attesting to Antoninus Pius. As in this apprenticship contract, in this horoscope, in this bond of guardianship, in this bank loan, in this personal loan, in this rent receipt, in this will, in this court decision, in this witness deposition, in this court summons, in this labor certification, in this hunting permit, in this security contract, in this birth certificate, in this wetnursing contract, in these trial minutes, in this census declaration, in this toll receipt, in this state correspondence, in this offocial certification of service, in this certification of a tax collector, in this application to become a priest, in this payment order for weavers, in this contract for a sale of camels, in this transfer of title to a house, in this death certificate in which the signator swears by Pius as current emperor, in this certification of ownership for a slave likewise, even in this certification of a copy of a document under Pius notarized under Aurelius. And on and on.

Oh, and let’s not forget. For my final project for my year-long graduate level course in papyrology at Columbia University under the renowned Roger Bagnall, I examined, edited, and translated some Egyptian tax receipts of Cheiremon the farmer, both of which have the name Antoninus Pius in the date line, in the state scribe’s own cursive hand. That’s right. Chairemon the farmer. Son of Apollonius. An impoverished nobody who owned not even a tenth of an acre in an obscure nowhere. Even for whom we have more evidence than Jesus!

But back to Antoninus Pius, we also have contemporary papyri preserving his actual writings, too. P.Stras. 3.130 preserves a letter of Antoninus Pius to the people of Antinoopolis confirming some of the privileges given them by Hadrian. And P.Harr. I 67 preserves one of Pius’s answers to a petition. Etc.

So. Antoninus Pius. “No contemporary evidence.” Really?

Conclusion

Of course we also have extensive, researched accounts of all three of these emperors in the Roman History of Cassius Dio, composed in the early third century (thus within fifty to a hundred years of them all), which in turn quotes or cites earlier (including contemporary) sources and has been independently vetted as more or less reliable in other similar matters, and we don’t have anything actually like that for Jesus either. And other sources compiled in the decades and centuries after them did likewise, some even quoting or referencing the decrees and writings of these Emperors. Many of the letters and decrees of all three of these emperors are also preserved in the 7th century Digest of Justinian, for example. But the claim here destroyed is that we don’t even have contemporary records of these men. I’ve more than proved that’s not merely false, it’s absurd.

This is why we cannot argue “but we believe Pius, Hadrian, and Trajan lived, therefore we should agree Jesus did.” The reason we believe Pius, Hadrian, and Trajan lived is a vast array of contemporary evidence of the fact, exactly none of which exists for Jesus. We even have better non-contemporary sources for them than for Jesus. But the contemporary sources alone blow away any contention that Jesus is as well attested as they are, and thus his historicity as assured. It’s not.