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 book cited is one first copyrighted in 1883, and deals with supposed Jewish and Roman sources concerning the trial of Jesus, including the purported report of Pilate to the Roman government, together with personal letters written by Pilate. His theories are (I) that, according to Cicero, the governor of Judea was obliged to deposit two copies of his accounts in the two chief cities of his province and place one in the archives of the Acrariuni, while in religious questions he had to report directly to the emperor; (2) that in 138 A.D., Justin Martyr, in his defense of Christianity, refers to "Acts which were recorded under Pontius Pilate;" (3) that Tertullian (200 A.D.), in the second chapter of his "Apologeticus," says: "All this was reported to Tiberius, the emperor, at that time ;' (4) that Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," book 2, chapter 2, speaks of Pilate's having transmitted to Tiberius an account of the circumstances concerning the resurrection of Christ; and (5) that, during the reign of Maximinus, 311 A.D., false "Acts of Pilate" were forged manifestly for the purpose of discrediting the older Acts. (See "Ecclesiastical History," chap. 9, pp. 5, 7.) The question is asked, Are the "Acts of Pilate," as we now have them, authentic?
Eisler, in "The Messiah Jesus," is certain that the "Acts of Pilate" as mentioned by Justin and Tertullian are obvious forgeries, for no genuine acts or reports could contain anything like the detail for which they are quoted (page Is). He feels, from a critical comparative study of them with Josephus, that they depend on Josephus for facts (pages 46; 50, 52).. He disagrees with Clough in feeling that the Emperor 1Vlaximinus (311 A.D.) published the genuine "Acts of Pilate" (page 16).
Tischendorf, describing the attitude of Justin and Tertullian, in his "Origin of the Four Gospels" (pages 141 ff.), thinks that the copy of "Acts of Pilate," as translated in his day, is not the work of one author, but rather shows evidence of having leaned too strongly on the Gospel of John.
The work, "Acts of Pilate," is recognized everywhere as apocryphal and of late origin, and should not be used as in any way authentic.
Lynn H. Wood
[S.D.A. Theological Seminary.]
