This is Jonathan Sheffield’s response to my opening response to his argument that the Romans could have disproved the resurrection unless it really happened and therefore it must really have happened. See Sheffield’s opening statement for a description of the debate and his opening case; and then my opening response thereto. My closing reply will appear in a few days; after which we will follow up with a closing discussion live online at Modern-Day Debate (scheduled for 5pm Pacific on Friday, June 26).
See the first of those links for this debate’s open comments policy: all polite and relevant remarks will be accepted after review. Patreon and Paypal supporters can have their comments published immediately.
-:-
Weren’t the Rulers of the Roman Empire Able to Falsify the Resurrection of Jesus? A Rebuttal
by Jonathan Sheffield
The objective of this rebuttal to Dr. Carrier is to ascertain the following:
Would the Rulers of the Roman Empire have taken a vested interest in falsifying the resurrection of Jesus? If so, what set of circumstances would have necessitated the Romans to take such action?
In response to this area of discussion, Dr. Carrier has advanced a position which asserts that “No known effort was made” inferring a lack of interest on the part of the empire to falsify [1]; yet an official tome of the empire ascribed to Pilate was published, and diligently spread abroad under Maximim II, signifying the empire’s aspiration to address such claims.[2]
While Dr. Carrier seems to concede this act of the empire in the 4th century,[3] he believes this was an isolated event, that was only precipitated by Christianity’s rise in popularity,[4] resulting in a political problem for the Romans.[5] Dr. Carrier’s logic would have us believe that such burdens were not felt by earlier administrations of the Empire from the Christians, hindering its desire to falsify claims against them.
Significant evidence that counters Dr. Carrier’s belief can be found throughout the serious tone of Pliny’s communications with Emperor Trajan.[6] Christians in Pliny’s province had rendered themselves repugnant to the ancient and settled laws of the Roman state by assembling themselves without authority—a disruption in the state of affairs within Bithynia that caused the governor great concern. Hence Pliny’s edict outlawing Christians assembling.[7]
According to Livy, Foreign religious ceremonies against the state religion of Rome were deemed unlawful.[8] Christians meeting secretly in their homes to worship their god as opposed to publicly worshiping at temples in Bithynia would be perceived as a threat to the state.[9] This is a parallel Dr. Carrier clearly recognized in the case of the Bacculi.[10]
Pliny regarded the rising popularity of Christianity as a contagion that was infectiously spreading throughout his province.[11] It impacted populations within the cities, neighboring villages, and countryside,[12] which would constitute a pressing political problem that was worthy of being addressed. The governor acquired knowledge through his investigation of Christians that revealed a “debased superstition carried to great lengths”[13]—a natural inference to the resurrection of Jesus. Why wasn’t a tome published under his command falsifying such a narrative?
Was Pliny somehow inept in his duties as governor? Was he unable to possess the foresight to remedy the political problems Christians posed in his province that was clear in the mind of Maximin II? The actions taken by Pliny upon learning of this “debased superstition carried to great lengths”[14] were not those of a disinterested party, despite what Dr. Carrier has suggested.[15]
The Governor specifically stated:
- “I postponed my examination, and immediately consulted you”[16]
- “The matter seems to me worthy of your consideration, especially as there are so many people involved in the danger”[17]
Nevertheless, no known tome was published by Pliny to falsify this so-called “contagious superstition” that was spreading throughout his province.[18] While Dr. Carrier has suggested that documentation from the period in question may not have transferred down to Maximin’s administration to assist in debunking Christian claims,[19] surely this would not be the case for Pliny, given his relationship with the historian Tacitus,[20] and his uncle.[21] This lack of a contradictory response is consistent with the affirmation that the empire was unable to falsify the resurrection of Jesus.
The plight of the Christians in Rome was also perceived by the emperor Nero as a political problem in his administration (circa 65 A.D.) which explains why Tacitus tells us that Nero “falsely accused the Christians” of setting fires in the market places of Rome.[22] Tacitus reports Christians were “infamous for their abominations”[23]; 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”[24] reporting that it had “erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome.”[25] Given that Tacitus introduces this information with a strong allusion to Jesus and the extreme penalty he suffered at the hands of Pilate,[26] this “destructive superstition” mentioned by him, all point back to the resurrection of Jesus.[27] This places the resurrection on the Empire’s radar, and the urgent nature of Tacitus’ language paints a vastly different picture than what Dr. Carrier asserts.[28]
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,”[29] and depicts Christianity as a political problem for the Emperor Nero that is spreading its “destructive superstition” throughout Rome and Judea.[30] 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.
According to Seutonius, Christians also appeared to be a political problem earlier for the Empire at the time of Claudius.[31] Suetonius’ statement seems consistent with the arrival of Christianity in Rome that caused constant disturbance among the Jews in the area over a certain “Chrestus,” leading to the Jews’ expulsion from Rome.
While Dr. Carrier may dispute this assessment, what other group could Dr. Carrier document associated with a certain “Chrestus” that could have caused notable social and political dissension throughout the Jewish community of Rome? The evidence would be consistent with the Christians, a class of men Suetonius identifies given over “to a new and mischievous superstition”[32]—another statement congruous with the resurrection of Jesus.
The writings of Pliny,[33] Tacitus,[34] and Suetonius[35] in regard to Christianity echo one another, in terms of their serious concern for the wave of political problems instigated by Christianity’s rise in popularity for the Empire. The indicated was perceived by the Roman officials as a very real danger to the state of affairs, which according to Dr. Carrier’s logic, should have warranted a response in the form of a falsification as was in the case under Maximin II.[36] Yet no credible tome was published to falsify Christianity’s “destructive superstition”[37]; nevertheless, we do see the same procedural precedent employed in the case of the Bacculi,[38] now with Christianity, which explains why those seated at the court of the emperor, like Festus,[39] Felix,[40] Agrippa[41] and others were interested in interviewing Paul, contrary to Dr. Carrier’s assertion.[42]
Acts 25:19 reports that Festus and King Agrippa had knowledge of Paul’s testimony and were therefore aware of claims about Jesus’ bodily resurrection prior to the hearing.[43] While Dr. Carrier asserts that “The resurrection of Jesus never comes up in that hearing,”[44] the record states otherwise. Paul testifies that he bore witness “to those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, in that Christ should suffer and be the first that should rise (αναστασεως) from the dead.”[45]
If Paul were only referring to a type of spiritual, metaphorical resurrection, then why would Festus respond in the manner he did?[46] Festus’ response is reminiscent to the response of the Athenian philosophers at Areopagus Hill when they cast their judgement on Paul’s preaching of Jesus and the resurrection (αναστασιν).[47] Festus charged Paul with lunacy for his beliefs—something he would not have done for believing in deities like the Manes and Lares.[48] This escalated charge points towards a logical conclusion: Festus and Agrippa were aware that Paul was preaching about a bodily resurrection. This connects with Paul’s statement in verse 26, that such events could be falsified—yet there is not a single record in existence from the governor or king that falsifies Paul’s claims.
Dr. Carrier has certainly explored in his writings the proper set of circumstances that would have necessitated the Roman empire to open an investigation into the resurrection of Jesus to falsify the narrative. Dr. Carrier delves further into his idea when he explains:
[I]f the tomb was empty and Christ’s followers were reporting that he had continued preaching to them and was still at large, Pilate would be compelled to assume an escape had occurred, and would have to haul every Christian in and interrogate every possible witness in a massive manhunt for what could only be to his mind an escaped convict—who was not only guilty of treason against Rome for claiming to be God and king …, but now also guilty of escaping justice and continuing to lead a rebellion![49]
Unquestionably there is evidence available for us to scrutinize that indicate the Romans were privy to claims about Jesus’ resurrection and were moved to open an investigation in response.
- All four Gospel accounts report an empty tomb.[50]
- Matthew’s statement affirms that a polemic commonly reported amongst the Jews was that the disciples came by night and stole away the body.[51]
- Strikingly, the Nazareth inscription[52] provides positive empirical evidence that is consistent with either a direct response to the discovery of the empty tomb, or a later Roman response to the Christians “contagious superstition” that Pliny,[53] Tacitus,[54] and Seutonius[55] alluded to in their statements.
- The historical documentation is consistent with claims of an empty tomb, and there is no documentary evidence to the contrary.
In addition, we are presented with testimony of two competent witnesses in Justin and Tertullian who provide context to the existence of key Roman records: the Acts of Pilate. Both individuals advocated for the divinity of Jesus on account of his life, death, and resurrection pointing to those Acts of Pilate they believed existed and would confirm those facts.[56]
The trial, sentence, and crucifixion of Jesus were official Acts of Pilate in his administration of Roman authority,[57] contrary to Dr. Carrier’s suggestion.[58] The law was imperative as to Pilate’s prescribed duty to report according to Cicero,[59] especially charges on one who had disturbed the peace and was charged with treason against the throne.
Also reports concerning religious matters were to be made to the emperor by the governors.[60] This was certainly the case in Pliny’s letter to Trajan regarding the Christians in Bithynia.[61]
Tertullian refers twice to a report made by Pilate to Tiberius.[62] Reportedly, Pilate informed the Emperor that he deemed the death sentence an unjust fate for an innocent and divine person. The Emperor was so moved by Pilate’s recount of Christ’s miracles and resurrection that he rallied for Christ to be ranked among the gods of Rome. However, the Senate refused.
Eusebius, who was at the court of Constantine, corroborates that it was customary for provincial governors to report the current local situation to the imperial office.[63]
Dr. Carrier’s perspective relies heavily on Biblical Scholar F.F. Bruce to counter Tertullian’s testimony.[64] However, his conjecture “on what we know of Tiberius” is refuted by Tacitus, who tell us, “Tiberius, while he tightened his control by this conferment on Drusus, allowed the Senate a shadow of its ancient power by inviting it to discuss provincial petitions.”[65] This is consistent with Tertullian’s testimony.
The rationale of Pilate’s petitioning Tiberius to go before the senate to grant the Christians legal status, would be to control and monitor the Christians in a public setting.
Ultimately the exploration and interpretation of facts presented here has established why the Roman Empire—with its able rulers, conversant historians, and executive control of the surrounding area—was unable to provide evidence that would effectively disprove the resurrection of Jesus.
While Herodotus and Plutarch were able to provide a counter-narrative to the supernatural claims of Aristeas[66] and Romulus,[67] the Roman Empire with all its power and resources was unable to produce the same regarding the resurrection of Jesus, which would have been the obvious thing to do if it were a hoax. This would imply the possibility of the resurrection being the Gospel truth.
-:-
See Richard Carrier’s response.
-:-
Endnotes
[1] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 16].
[2] See Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 361 [9.5.1].
[3] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 17-18].
[4] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 18].
[5] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 18].
[7] Ibid.
[8] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita xxxix, C. 16.
[10] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 7 line 6]
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 8].
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 19].
[20] Pliny the Younger, Letters LXV. To Tacitus; from: The Harvard Classics 1909–14.
[21] Pliny the Younger, Letters “VI.16 To Tacitus.” See Wikipedia.
[22] Tacitus, Annals book 15, chapter 44. See text and commentary by Paul Brians.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 9 line 1].
[29] Tacitus, Annals book 15, chapter 44. See text and commentary by Paul Brians.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Seutonius, The Life of Claudius 25.4.
[32] Seutonius, Life of Nero 16.2.
[34] Tacitus, Annals book 15, chapter 44. See text and commentary by Paul Brians.
[35] Seutonius, Life of Nero 16.2.
[36] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 17-18].
[37] Tacitus, Annals book 15, chapter 44. See text and commentary by Paul Brians.
[38] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 39.8-19.
[42] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 1 line 8].
[44] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 4 line 2].
[48] Manes and Lares: see entry at ThoughtCo.com.
[49] See Carrier: “Why did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb” paragraph 5.
[50] Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-8, John 20:1-13.
[52] Nazareth Inscription: See entry by Clyde E. Billington at BibleArchaeology.org.
[54] Tacitus, Annals book 15, chapter 44. See text and commentary by Paul Brians.
[55] Seutonius, Life of Nero 16.2.
[56] Justin, First Apology (35, 48); Tertullian, Apologeticum (5), (21, 24).
[57] “The Political and Legal History of the Trial of Jesus” (William Overton Clough, Indianapolis, 1895, page 5). Cf. Lynn H. Wood.
[58] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 2 line 3].
[59] Cicero, Ad. Fam., II, 17, V., 20; Ad. Attic., VIl, 7 Retrieved from “The Political and Legal History of the Trial of Jesus” (William Overton Clough, Indianapolis, 1895, page 5). Cf. Lynn H. Wood.
[60] Op. Cit., page 6.
[62] Tertullian, Apologeticum 5), (21, 24).
[63] See Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 75 [2.5].
[64] See Carrier: “The Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus” [Section 2 line 11].
[66] Herodotus, Histories IV.13-16. See Wikipedia.
[67] Plutarch, Parallel Lives (GoogleBooks).
Mr. Sheffield, a few questions if you will. How many Christians do you think existed in 35 C.E.? Was a very large number, or a very small number?
How many (assuming they could even be told apart from jews) would it take to warrant a concern for Roman officials? And if Jesus was buried in a mass grave (I realize you likely don’t accept that, so consider it a hypothetical), how long after he was buried would Roman officials have any chance of confirming his body was still there (falsifying the resurrection)?
Mr. Keith,
Thank you for your questions. I apologize for the delay in responding.
Regarding your first question:
“How many Christians do you think existed in 35 C.E.? Was a very large number, or a very small number?”
Based on Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth, there were initially 500, and from Luke’s report in Acts, there were over 3000 conversions, 50 days after the event.
The reports from Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius demonstrate that Christianity was spreading throughout the empire.
Secondly, as I noted above in my rebuttal to address your next question:
“The writings of Pliny,[33] Tacitus,[34] and Suetonius[35] in regard to Christianity echo one another, in terms of their serious concern for the wave of political problems instigated by Christianity’s rise in popularity for the Empire.
The indicated was perceived by the Roman officials as a very real danger to the state of affairs, which according to Dr. Carrier’s logic, should have warranted a response in the form of a falsification as was in the case under Maximin II.[36]”
To address your last question, I feel the need to clarify a point that is common in our legal system known as corpus delicti. We do not have to have a physical body, to demonstrate a murder has been committed.
The Romans could have easily verified whenever the reports came out, if there was even a tomb in Jerusalem, or if a person named Joseph of Arimathea even existed and owned such a tome. That information alone could have falsified the Christians narrative.
The empire had spies all over the empire, and no one noticed Galileans’ deposing of a body ?
The reason I provided the documented report of Domitian investigating the grandsons of Jude was to demonstrate, that the concept of investigating the relatives several generations after the event was understood.
Why was Herodotus and Plutarch able to provide a counternarrative for the supernatural claims of Aristeas and Romulus, yet the Roman Empire was unable too in the case of Jesus.
In Herodotus’ report of Aristeas, the fuller went back to the scene of the crime to investigate if the body was there or not based on the report. This happened even after the fuller received contradictory information.
I’m sure the Roman Empire in the first century was familiar with the works of Herodotus, and how such a similar report could be investigated and or debunked in the case of Jesus.
Thanks.
Jonathan A. Sheffield.
Firstly, thanks so much for replying. I appreciate being able to interact directly and look forward to the in-person continuation you and Dr. Carrier have scheduled.
Also, I want to be clear on a few things so I can understand the logic here.
Pliny wrote in the 110s, and didn’t even know why Christians should be punished.
Tacitus wrote in the 110s, and wrote that Christians were blamed (though not actually guilty) of burning Rome.
Seutonious wrote around 120, and states that Christians/Chrestians were punished.
I don’t follow how these examples actually account for a significant threat/concern to Rome. The first two actually seem to present Christianity as unknown or unlucky. The last presents almost no information, and indeed it’s vagueness may indicate it wasn’t even referring to Christians. But perhaps most importantly, these are all happening 80+ years after the fact. That something should grow (even to the point of being a problem) in 80 years does not imply the origin point was of any significance (or truth value).
You talk about potential falsification of the Christian narrative, but when would this have occurred? If you are talking the early second century, none of the writings you cited implied the writers cared about Christian belief. So why would they have tried to dig up records (that probably wouldn’t have existed at that point) to debunk the religious claims? How would writers outside Judea be able to find out if a Joseph of Arimathea ever existed 80 years prior? How would they know whether or not such a person did or did not have a tomb with someone else’s body it it? And further, if you are talking about right away… the gospels weren’t written for decades, so we don’t even know if those claims were part of the original narrative.
“The empire had spies all over the empire, and no one noticed Galileans’ deposing of a body?”
This is honestly a perplexing question. Do you think Romans were posted at every street corner in the empire? Do you really think 11-12 men couldn’t coordinate the moving or disposing of a body without being seen? And that doesn’t even get into the probability that Jesus being anywhere but a mass grave was just a story (wasn’t moved at all, and the stories of a tomb only arose decades later when no one could falsify them).
I’m not sure how Herodotus and Plutarch fit into this narrative. Herodotus doesn’t report or conduct an investigation, just relates a story he was told. Plutarch was writing about one of the most famous cultural heroes of the empire. There’s no way to honestly compare either of these to Tacitus/Pliny/Seutonius’ treatment of Christians/Jesus.
You just told me this was weeks away, Richard! OK … now give me time to read it! And I look forward to your response to him. Keep up the good work!
Correction:
Paragraph 1 line 1, “Sheffield” should be “Sheffield’s.”
Corrections to Mr. Sheffield’s rebuttal:
Paragraph 3 line 3, the comma after “Pilate” should be deleted.
Paragraph 4 line 3, “Carriers'” should be “Carrier’s.”
Paragraph 5 line 4, the comma after “Bithynia” should be deleted.
Paragraph 6 line 1, “Foreign” should be “foreign.”
Paragraph 7, the last sentence commits the complex question fallacy.
Paragraph 8 line 3, “was not that” should be “were not those.”
First bullet, sentence requires a period.
Paragraph 10 line 2, a comma is required after the parentheses.
Paragraph 11 line 1, a comma is required after “superstition.” Paragraph 11 line 4, “points” should be “point.”
Paragraph 13 line 3, “Jew’s” should be “Jews’.”
Paragraph 15 line 1, a comma is required after “Tacitus.” Paragraph 15 line 4, “was” should be deleted. Paragraph 15 line 7, “Aggripa” should be “Agrippa” and a comma is required after that name.
Paragraph 19, third bullet, line 3, a comma is required after “Tacitus.”
Paragraph 20 line 3, a comma is required after “death.”
Paragraph 21 line 1, “Acts” should be “acts.”
Paragraph 23 line 3, the comma should be deleted.
Paragraph 25 line 1, “Scholar” should be “scholar.”
Paragraph 26 line 1, “Pilate” should be “Pilate’s” and the comma should be deleted.
Last paragraph line 2, the second comma should be deleted. Last paragraph, last line, “Gospel” should be “gospel.”
Thank you. Note I retain all choices Sheffield makes regarding capitalizing words (the technique can be rhetorical and often correct usage). Fallacies are not an editor’s concern. And some of the suggested corrections aren’t grammatically required. The other issues have been corrected.
Those are the same debunked arguments from the first round. This argumentation amounts to a conspiracy theory, i.e. “we do not have any evidence of Jesus’s resurrection because Romans suppressed the evidence.” Absence of evidence is used as evidence. My earlier comment on Mr. Sheffield’s lack of understanding of the falsifiability principle stands. Due to his misunderstanding none of his contortions can prove any resurrection. Notwithstanding this vital failing, he does not even say how Justin and Tertullian could have known the content of the Acts of Pilate, or even a claim from them that those Acts had an account of the resurrection. Gospels (anonymous religious fictions) are neither reports neither documentation and it is interesting that an unwitting distinction is made in the phrasing between gospels and “testimony from competent witnesses.”
What would that evidence look like? The author does not say. How do you disprove a resurrection? You could produce a body, but that does not disprove a spiritual resurrection. How do you produce a body if someone moved it to a secret place, as is a reasonable conclusion in the context of the gospel texts? How do you produce a body if the body was thrown in a common grave? How does anyone of that era produce a rapidly decaying body? How does one refute a resurrection if the facts include the living “body” hanging out with his disciples afterward? It’s hard to refute an event that didn’t happen. The evidence (thin as it is) gives no suggestion that the Romans cared about a resurrection at all, until it became a legend many decades later.
Where are Paul’s chief witness summons eg to the Roman soldiers or Mary – Jesus’ mum – or Mary Magdalene or Peter or Joseph of Arimathea?
What ‘bodily’ resurrection? Does Mr Sheffield mean Paul’s spritual body resurrection?
And what testimony?
Paul’s testimony is introducing himself as the chief witness – and witnessing to the Prophets and Moses testimony…
A mite circular and unhelpful I should say.
Would the Rulers of the Roman Empire have taken a vested interest in falsifying the resurrection of Jesus?
No, not necessarily.
1.) One would have to assume that said “rulers’ had actually heard of this obscure spiritual healer named Jesus in the first place. Yet there are few extra-biblical contemporaneous records that establish there ever was such a person known as Jesus of Nazareth, or that he was famous enough outside of Judea to attract such scrutiny.
2.) One would have to assume that the alleged miracles ascribed to Jesus were unique enough to pose a significant threat to the Roman empire, or, at least, credible enough to attract the intellectual
attention of more critical philosophers of the day.
Indeed, while few had ever heard of the Jesus described in the Gospels during the first century, early followers of Chrestus were nevertheless
subjected to derision and ridicule because of their glaring ignorance, naiveté, and stunning gullibility.
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
Also: The Project Gutenberg: Arguments Of Celsus, Porphyry, And The Emperor Julian Against The Christians, by Thomas Taylor
As Plutarch, and other Christian critics (Celsus, Suetonius, Porphyry Against the Christians (Hoffmann, p49) suggest: there was nothing
really unique about Jesus’s alleged miracles, infancy, crucifixion or resurrection.
“Indeed it is preposterous that the works of a craftsmen (often the worst sort of person) should be considered a god.” Celsus
R. J. Hoffman, Celsus on the True Doctrine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 153.
3.) Being born of a virgin, healing miracles, crucifixion, death, and resurrection were common enough motifs throughout hundreds of mystery cults in the known world. The notion that Christians assigned all three cliches to their Chrestus was laughable to most educated Romans, the ruling class, and the Roman elite. ( Not the Impossible Faith- Dr. Richard Carrier)
Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis, and other prominent rulers from the first to third century never mentioned said Jesus.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Carrier does reference an investigation made by the Epicurean philosopher, Lucian of Samosate (120-180 AD) and his effort to falsify a new religion born in Southern Turkey during the 2nd century AD (130-170).
Apparently, the God figure was named Glycol, God of the people of Ionopolis (later renamed Glykon)
and the religion was founded by a professional huckster known as Alexander of Abonuteichos.
Alexander claimed the gods had given him a miraculous egg that cracked and gave birth to a giant snake with a human head.
Lucian exposed “the God” to be a trained snake with a human head puppet attached to it and a megaphone inside whereby it would prophecy, predict and answer questions,
So, Would the Rulers of the Roman Empire have taken a vested interest in falsifying the resurrection of Jesus?
In fact, it could even be said that such supernatural claims lessened the threat Christians posed. It would have been far more alarming to the ruling elite if Jesus were a fiery orator without all the magical trappings – and yet still managed to attract a following.