When probably Jesus was connected with Pilate

[Giuseppe]

118 CE: Tacitus mentions Christ and Pilate in the same row.

112 CE: Pliny mentions still a Christ quasi deo, but not Pilate.

By applying the Argument from Silence on the name Pilate in Pliny, I conclude that the first Gospel connecting the name of Pilate with Christ was written between 112 and 118 CE.

[Ben C. Smith]

118 CE: Tacitus mentions Christ and Pilate in the same row.

112 CE: Pliny mentions still a Christ quasi deo, but not Pilate.

By applying the Argument from Silence on the name Pilate in Pliny, I conclude that the first Gospel connecting the name of Pilate with Christ was written between 112 and 118 CE.

Sure, provided the argument from silence is any good, which it generally is not. And provided the Testimonium Taciteum is genuine, which it may not be. And provided the (passage in the) tenth book of Pliny's epistles is genuine, which some doubt. And provided Pilate and Christ were first connected in a gospel and not in some other medium.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the Argument from Silence in the case of Pliny is strong.

Even if Tacitus is interpolated, we have (more or less) in the same period 1 Timothy's mention of Pilate. I mean: a mention of Pilate so temporally near the Pliny's strong silence about Pilate.

And I have strong reasons to see the Roman persecutions á la Pliny behind the Gospel association of Pilate with "Christ" (as opposed to Jesus).

[Ben C. Smith]

I think that the Argument from Silence in the case of Pliny is strong.

I am not sure why you think Pliny was obligated to mention Pilate.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the Argument from Silence in the case of Pliny is strong.

I am not sure why you think Pliny was obligated to mention Pilate.

I think that Pliny described simply what he saw: a sect that adored a god named Christ. He didn't even some effort to euhemerize/rationalize the cult (in order to explain with the his own tools the "fact" under the his eyes). If he had done so, he would have necessarily mentioned Pilate (as Tacitus would have done some year later). But he didn't.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think that the Argument from Silence in the case of Pliny is strong.

I am not sure why you think Pliny was obligated to mention Pilate.

I think that Pliny described simply what he saw: a sect that adored a god named Christ. He didn't even some effort to euhemerize/rationalize the cult (in order to explain with the his own tools the "fact" under the his eyes). If he had done so, he would have necessarily mentioned Pilate (as Tacitus would have done some year later). But he didn't.

But this is nonsense. Surely you can see that this is nonsense. This is exactly where the argument from silence fails before it even begins.

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand your objection. For me, it is simply surprising the fact that, among all - ALL - the Pagan records about Christ, Pliny is the only source where Jesus is not "neutralized" in advance by calling him a mere man, a mere guy condemned by Pilate, a liar, a sorcerer, a bastard, etc.

The more simple explanation of all this is that Pliny met only the god and not the man.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't understand your objection. For me, it is simply surprising the fact that, among all - ALL - the Pagan records about Christ, Pliny is the only source where Jesus is not "neutralized" in advance by calling him a mere man, a mere guy condemned by Pilate, a liar, a sorcerer, a bastard, etc.

The more simple explanation of all this is that Pliny met only the god and not the man.

There may be something to this; I am not opposed to this line of reasoning: Pliny said (if the letter is genuine) that he made inquiries, and then the only information we get about Christ is that he was considered divine. But your OP narrowed the field to the mention of Pilate only, which is not the same thing. Christ may appear before Pilate as a god, too; the gods could descend and walk among humans. Under the guise of a mention of Pilate, you are trying to eliminate Christ's entire earthly career from Pliny's purview, as if no god ever had one. I readily and eagerly admit that we have no proof that Pliny knew of Christ as a human; nor, however, do we have any proof that Pliny thought of Christ solely as a heavenly creature who had never touched down upon the earth. And Pliny is under no obligation to mention Pilate when it is the current worship of Christ "as a god," and not the origin of Christian belief (as we find in Tacitus), that is his concern.

[Giuseppe]

Christ may appear before Pilate as a god, too;

That only claim is sufficient, for a Roman Governor (like Pliny), to require very probably the raising of the suspicion about the guy being really a god (and not rather a seditious anti-Roman). The Pagans (and Pliny was a sincere pagan) were inclusive the more possible: every foreign god is a real god until proven otherwise. But if Pliny had known about Pilate as the killer of the ''god Christ'', that info alone had to be sufficient to derive the attention of Pliny: what should I do with the followers of a presumed seditious Jew? But it is evident that Pliny was persecuting the Christians for reasons that are different from the crucifixion by a Roman governor (because otherwise there would no need a priori to send an epistle to the Emperor).

The fact that Pliny didn't mention Pilate as a problem for the affair Christ is surprising (=unexpected, =improbable).

the gods could descend and walk among humans. Under the guise of a mention of Pilate, you are trying to eliminate Christ's entire earthly career from Pliny's purview, as if no god ever had one. I readily and eagerly admit that we have no proof that Pliny knew of Christ as a human; nor, however, do we have any proof that Pliny thought of Christ solely as a heavenly creature who had never touched down upon the earth.

My implication is not:

Absence of mention of Pilate in Pliny ---> Jesus never existed (or: Jesus was never conceived as a god on the earth)

My implication is:

Absence of mention of Pilate in Pliny ----> the first Gospel (mentioning Pilate) was written after Pliny.

And Pliny is under no obligation to mention Pilate when it is the current worship of Christ "as a god," and not the origin of Christian belief (as we find in Tacitus), that is his concern.

Before Constantin, I think that the only mention of a god crucified by Roman authorities should be sufficient to raise at least the problem (hence the mention of Pilate), in the eyes of the same Roman authorities.


Tacitus is evidence that the crucifixion by a Roman governor is sufficient to ''explain'' the dangerousness of the Christiani.

Why couldn't the same mention of Pilate be sufficient, in the eyes of Pliny, to ''explain'' the dangerousness of the Christiani, without need of new directives by the Emperor?

The best answer, I think, is that ''Pilate'' was not found by Pliny in association with ''Christ'', in any his interrogation.


And this is because the first gospel mentioning Pilate was written after Pliny and before Tacitus.

[arnoldo]

So this wasn't written in the late first/early second century?

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63