This is my final written response to Jonathan Sheffield’s 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; then my opening response thereto; and then his last written reply. This concludes the written portion of this debate. 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.

-:-

All Evidence Establishes the Rulers of the Roman Empire Didn’t Care about the Resurrection of Jesus, and Couldn’t Have Investigated It Even if They Did

by Richard Carrier

Sheffield’s case is based on treating pure speculations as established facts; then arguing in a circle. That’s not sound reasoning. Now in his reply Sheffield just repeats these same fallacies, substantively responding to nothing in my rebuttal—which I shall here cite by section number in parentheses, as containing all the evidence and links proving each point I here repeat, none of which Sheffield responded to.

1

As I said (§2), Sheffield presents no evidence that any real Acta of Pilate ever mentioned the resurrection or would have. Nor does he present any evidence regarding the content of any actual report made by Pilate about anything whatever. Instead, the only Acts of Pilate we have any evidence of is a Christian forgery (and a later anti-Christian forgery). You cannot argue from the content or silence of documents you don’t have; much less, that don’t exist; even less, that are forged. End of story.

Quite simply, Sheffield can authenticate no document here. And that ends that. Sheffield’s insistence that the ridiculously fawning Christian document Tertullian describes was an actual report from Pilate evinces an extraordinary gullibility in Sheffield that I can fathom no excuse for. Just read up on this. Seriously.

2

As I said (§1), the Acts of the Apostles makes clear no Roman or Jewish investigation of the resurrection occurred. Yet it could not fail to mention that had it happened, as it would have radically altered the entire plot of Acts, and every court hearing it depicts. Instead, it never comes up. Ever. No one cared. Acts has officials even declaring that disinterest. So Sheffield’s claim that such an investigation happened is falsified by his own Bible.

As I also said (§1), even Pliny the Younger didn’t investigate the resurrection of Jesus. And as for Pliny, so for Pilate. Maybe Sheffield should actually read Pliny’s letter. Then he’d learn Pliny conducted no investigation of the supernatural claims of Christians. Pliny tells us what he did investigate and it was not the resurrection claim.[1] This disproves Sheffield’s false assertion that he did, or any Romans would. To the contrary, Pliny says he was only interested in the crime of illegal assembly, and that the religious claims Christians made so disinterested him that as soon as he learned what they were he stopped investigating those claims, dismissing them outright. Exactly the opposite of what Sheffield claims.

Trajan then even instructed Pliny to press no investigations, that it was even unworthy of the Empire to do so. Again exactly the opposite of what Sheffield claims. “Christians are not to be hunted out,” Trajan says, as that is “not in consonance with the spirit of our age,” instead he instructs Pliny Christians are only to be investigated for illegal association. No interest in the resurrection belief. It’s dismissed without inquiry. They literally care not one whit about it. As for Trajan, so for Pilate.

As I also said (§8), even the unsourced Christian myth about Domitian Sheffield cites refutes Sheffield. That tale depicts Domitian in no way interested in the resurrection claim; he dismisses Christians as silly nobodies, without conducting any investigation of anything, much less the resurrection. As for Domitian, so for Pilate.

As I also said (§3), the resurrection didn’t even come up at the trial of Justin Martyr, proving Justin had no real knowledge of any Acts of Pilate mentioning it. The state prosecutor Rusticus had no interest in whether the resurrection claim was true; it never comes up. Justin is never questioned about it, and never raises it. Rusticus makes no argument pertaining to it, rhetorical or otherwise. It simply wasn’t relevant. As for Rusticus, so for Pilate.

3

Sheffield makes assertions about record survival based on no evidence, and contradicted by evidence. As I said (§2), Rome’s archives were burned several times (twice even before Pliny or Tacitus wrote; consequently neither ever mention consulting any unpublished documents of the early first century, or even trying to—for anything whatever). For most things records were rarely kept so long anyway. Sheffield presents no evidence any state record of Pilate’s government remained to be consulted in the second century, much less obscure investigative reports.

4

As I said (§4), Sheffield falsely claims Paul presented evidence regarding the resurrection at his hearing before Festus and Agrippa. He did not. Acts covers Paul’s presentation thoroughly. Evidence for the resurrection literally never comes up. Paul only refers to a vision, which was legally unfalsifiable, and that he believed scripture predicted what he saw (as even Sheffield quotes: Paul asserts to Festus and Agrippa only that “the prophets and Moses” said the “Christ should suffer and be the first that should rise,” not that he did), which was legally unfalsifiable. This proves there was nothing to investigate. Accordingly, Acts depicts Festus and Agrippa both confirming there was nothing for them to investigate. And consequently they investigate nothing. This alone outright falsifies Sheffield’s theory.

As I said (§4), Acts likewise makes clear the Sanhedrin came to the same conclusion: all Paul had to present to them was a vision and his own interpretation of scripture, neither of which could be investigated. And the Sanhedrin, accordingly, never investigates anything. They simply refer his case to the Romans for violating local religious ordinances that had nothing to do with his claims about the resurrection.

5

As I said (§5), had there been a missing body to investigate, Acts would say so. It doesn’t; so there wasn’t. This fully refutes Sheffield. He cannot circularly presume the Gospels are telling the truth about there being a missing body so as to argue that the Gospels are telling the truth about there being a missing body. To the contrary, the evidence of Acts firmly proves the idea of a missing body was invented later. It was never part of real Christian history. (See, again, Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? and Resurrection: Faith or Fact? and On Paul’s Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O’Connell Debate.)

6

As I said (§6), even had the Christians been claiming the body was missing (and Acts proves they weren’t; it comes up in no legal hearing, and no inquiry is ever made of it), there was no way for the Romans to falsify that. Exhumation was illegal. And bodies were not legally identifiable even after three days; and Acts says Christians waited fifty days.

So even had the Romans dangerously violated burial laws to produce the body (and Sheffield presents no evidence they even tried to), or even legally inspected the grave (and again Sheffield presents no evidence they did), they knew no one could say it really was Jesus, rendering such tests futile. We have no evidence anyone tried this; nor any evidence regarding what happened if they did. Sheffield cannot substitute his speculation about what happened, as if that’s factually what happened.

Sheffield then argues in a circle by presuming Matthew’s tall tale about a theft accusation is true in order to argue Matthew’s tall tale about a theft accusation is true. Not only does Sheffield have no evidence it’s true, there’s abundant evidence it’s false (evidence and links are in §5 of my previous rebuttal).

Indeed, as I also said (§6), even if we were to accept any part of Matthew’s implausible tale of a false accusation the body was stolen, Sheffield presents no evidence that that accusation was actually false! All he has are stacks of speculations, that he pretends are facts. That’s not how history works.

8

As I said (§7), Sheffield’s example of the centuries-earlier investigation of the Bacchus cult bears no valid analogy. The cultural and political climate had completely changed since; and the concerns the Romans then had had nothing to do with claims to the supernatural, but straightforward political insurgency, which the Christians posed no threat of.

As I said (§7), by Pilate’s time, Romans had long since given up hostility to foreign religions, reversing their policy into tolerance; consequently, as all evidence shows, they no longer cared about sectarian religious disputes at all. A treaty even required them to respect Jews’ religious practices; which is why Acts shows Roman authorities repeatedly declaring no legal interest in this, disproving Sheffield’s every point (again, in §1 I cited numerous proofs of this; even of Romans explicitly saying it).

As I said (§7), unlike the Bacchants of centuries earlier (who in Pilate’s time were no longer feared, outlawed, or investigated), the Christians Pilate would know had no chance of infiltrating the Senate, posed no military or electoral threat, and were not violating any Roman laws. As I said (§7), Jews had the right of assembly, which is why Judaism flourished with dozens of sects, all unopposed and uninvestigated by the Romans—until they took up arms, which the Christians never did. Once Christians distinguished themselves from Jews, they no longer fell under that treaty; only then did they start being investigated and prosecuted, but only for illegal assembly, never any claims about the resurrection. Sheffield continually conflates “investigating the crime of illegal assembly” with “investigating the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.” That’s irrational.

All the evidence above shows the resurrection of Jesus was a claim the Romans had no legal interest in whatever, until the Romans started policing religion again in the third century. Until then the claim violated no law. Believing it violated no law. Preaching it violated no law. It posed no material threat. All evidence shows Romans simply dismissed it as silly nonsense, not even worth the bother of investigating.

9

Sheffield now also adds new false claims.

• He speculates that the Chrestus riots under Claudius mentioned by Suetonius had to do with the resurrection of Jesus. But he can’t even establish it had anything to do with Christianity. Suetonius knew what Christianity was; he elsewhere mentions Nero’s punishing Christians alongside pastry chefs and rowdy charioteers (hence all for moral offenses, not beliefs). So Suetonius would have said the Chrestus riots were about Christians had he known that to be the case. Clearly he didn’t. And neither did Acts, which recognizes those riots involved only Jews, not Christians (Acts 18:2). Once again, Sheffield’s own Bible refutes him. Regardless, Suetonius makes no mention of anyone even caring about, much less investigating, the supernatural claims of Christians. Sheffield keeps confusing opposition to Christian behavior with opposition to Christian beliefs.
• He falsely implies Festus “charged” Paul with a crime of lunacy, but there was no such crime, and Festus literally charged Paul with no crime at all (Acts 26:32). Paul was solely on trial for disturbing the temple (Acts 24:4-6); never for any beliefs. And when Paul tried to claim he was really only on trial for his beliefs, those beliefs he listed are simply: he had visions; and he disagreed with some Jews regarding what scripture says. That’s it. No evidence regarding the resurrection. Festus calls him mad precisely to dismiss the case as frivolous. Because Festus outright says he had no idea “how to investigate such matters” (Acts 25:19-20). Exactly the opposite of what Sheffield claims.
• Everything Sheffield says about “the Nazareth inscription” is false. It’s simply not applicable to our debate (see The Nazareth Inscription, updated in Hitler Homer Bible Christ).
• Sheffield’s examples from Herodotus and Plutarch are false analogies: neither incident occurred under the Roman Empire, and no investigations were undertaken in either case; these authors simply repeat alternative versions of mythical resurrections, not actual investigated resurrections. These cases are simply not applicable to our debate.
• Sheffield’s citations of Cicero also do not evince what he claims. Sheffield cites three letters of Cicero, Ad Familiares 2.17 and 5.20 and Ad Atticum 7.7. These only mention the filing of financial accounts for the treasury department (Rationes Quaestoris), not records of mundane legal decisions or investigations of any kind. Resurrections would not appear in financial account books.

So none of this helps his case. We are left with no evidence for any of Sheffield’s claims; and abundant evidence against Sheffield’s claims. That’s it. Cooked.

10

So as I said (§9), all the evidence shows the Romans didn’t care, there was no evidence for them to investigate, and no records existed to consult. And even if they ever did, there’s no evidence they didn’t cast doubt on the resurrection—because we haven’t been allowed to read them.

-:-

So concludes our written debate. Come watch our follow up discussion at Modern Day Debate.

-:-

[1] I here include the text of Pliny’s Letter to Trajan, where he describes the only things he investigated, because Sheffield seems disinclined to follow the link and read it himself:

This is the plan which I have adopted in the case of those Christians who have been brought before me. I ask them whether they are Christians; if they say yes, then I repeat the question a second and a third time, warning them of the penalties it entails, and if they still persist, I order them to be taken away to prison. For I do not doubt that, whatever the character of the crime may be which they confess, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy certainly ought to be punished. … I thought it the more necessary…to find out what truth there was in these statements [about their harmless activities] by submitting two women, who were called deaconesses, to the torture, but I found nothing but a debased superstition carried to great lengths. So I postponed my examination, and immediately consulted you.