mountainman

The book of Acts is thought to contain no history. How on earth can you say it "may not be accurate on this detail"?

Let me get this straight 1-2: (1) Hanson thinks that the non historical Acts authored between 80 and 130 CE is to be treated as a source for Pliny writing c.111 CE? (2) Hanson therefore translates the people found in Pliny's 14th century manuscript as "Christ-niks" and not "Christians".

Obviously the Latin text does not say "Christians".
That's all we are really interested in here.
If the evidence does not say "Christians"
then it cannot be used as evidence for "Christians".
It's really quite simple.
Why the apologetics?

Toto

In the same way, a novel might contain accurate details about a historical period.

I think that the Book of Acts does not contain reliable history on Paul or any of the events portrayed there, but there may be incidental details that are accurate social history.

No. the social background of Acts tells us something about the state of affairs around 111 CE.

But it does say Christians, or the word that is usually translated as Christians.

Hanson, however, appears to want to make the point that the term Christian was not well known at the time, so we can't be absolutely sure what Pliny meant by it. Pliny did not know anything about a Christian religion or a Christian church.

That is why this is not overwhelming proof for the existence of Christianity. Pliny could have been misinformed or confused, or there could have been an unrelated group known as Messianists or Christians that bore no relation to the later Christian church. But it is the sort of evidence you might expect if Christianity were an underground movement around 111 CE.

I don't understand your confusion.