We recommended here Glenn Miller's essay on this subject and our evaluation of his work and another countering work here. Here is a miscellaneous objection:

This objection is sometimes tendered, and I really wonder if those who make it have actually read the works of Seneca and Pliny in question - rather than simply, say, parroting Edward Gibbon's remarks on the subject! Pliny's work is entitled Natural History [Plin.NH], and it is a multi-volume work covering a wide variety of subjects - geography, meteorology, mineralogy, zoology, and botany. Volume 2 of this work is concerned with cosmology and astronomy, and is the place we might expect Pliny to have recorded this event - if he indeed did intend to record ALL such events! However, there is absolutely no indication that this was Pliny's intent - he offers examples, he makes descriptions, but NOWHERE is there any indication that his work is intended to be an exhaustive catalog of all possible relevant data!

More to the point, it is doubtful that Pliny would have recorded this event in any case, unless he had been there himself. The darkness at the crucifixion, as we see from Thallus, defied natural explanation, and had the character of a miracle; and this is precisely the sort of event that Pliny would pass over in disdain - for he was a skeptic and a rationalist of the highest order! Consider these words from Pliny's pen [ibid., 179, 183]:

I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to discover the shape and form of God.

That that supreme being, whatever it be, pays heed to man's affairs is a ridiculous notion.

Given the above, what would this writer have made of reports of a miraculous and unexplained darkness? My guess is, he would turn up his nose and relegate the matter to the wastebasket! He would consider such reports unworthy of his attention and not worth recording.

What, then, of Seneca and his work, Naturales Questiones [Sen.NQ]? There is even less cause to suppose mention of the darkness here. Seneca's work is mostly theoretical surveys of natural phenomena - by no means an attempt at an exhaustive catalog of events! - and Seneca is far more concerned with drawing morals from what he records that with listing events, of which he does very little.

As for Josephus, while that may seem a tougher one, it isn't -- we need to keep in mind a major constraint Joe was under at the time! Josephus was writing for the favor of his patron Vespasian, whom he had credited with fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Josephus was quite safe mentioning that Jesus did miracles, but to ascribe to Jesus some sign that would have signified special status with God -- like the darkness -- would have been at cross-purposes with what his patron would have been happy with.

Bottom line: For this objection to have any force, it must be shown WHY these writers should have included a reference to the darkness - but for Seneca and Pliny, there is simply no evidence that they should have, or would have been interested in recording it, and Josephus would have been inclined if anything to not report it.

And now once again, we find ourselves compelled to enlighten Stevie Carr of the Skeptical School, who responds to our point about Pliny being a rationalist and skeptic by noting this quote (which we will assume to be genuine and accurate) from Pliny's Natural History:

'It is also reported that once several suns were seen at midday at the Bosphorus, and that these lasted from dawn till sunset. In former times three suns have often been seen at once, for example in the consulships of Spurius Postumius and Quintus Mucius of Quintus Marcius and Marcus Porcius, of Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabellal and of Marcus Lepidus and Lucius Plancus; and our generation saw this during the principate of his late Majesty Claudius, in his consulship, when Cornelius Orfitus was his colleague. It is not stated that more than three suns at a time have ever been seen hitherto.'

and Pliny continues 'Also three moons have appeared at once, for instance in the consulship of Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Fannius.'

Stevie does rightly get the point that, "Of course, Pliny , being a rationalist and a sceptic, did not regard 3 suns all day long as a miracle (but a darkness of 3 hours would have been a miracle that he would disdain reporting)." Yes, of course, Stevie, because that was attributed to miraculous causes. Hence, disdain. Not, Pliny "did not record events which defied rational explanation." He would not record events attributed to divine intervention.

As an amusing close, Stevie whinnies, "Perhaps [Holding] can come up with a rational explanation for 3 suns appearing often in the sky. And a rational explanation for 3 moons." I don't know where Stevie gets the "often" but as for explaining it rationally -- why I sure can, Stevie. Just peek here, you old (sun) dog.

Well, Stevie still can't seem to learn his lesson. Not even admitting he misread the above re "rational explanation" versus "divine intervention", Stevie merely calls seeing 3 suns in the link above a case of "self-deceiving." Ah, subjectivity, the ultimate answer! -- if that's the tack -- any chance that the ancients saw this as 3 suns and deceived themselves by that rubric?? But that's fine. Maybe Stevie can also call these people self-deceiving:

From here:

May I use this opportunity to correct another popular misconception about Die Winterreise. In the penultimate song, its protagonist sees "three suns" in the sky. This is frequently taken as an indication that he is not in his right mind, but in fact, the phenomenon of "mock suns" or "sun dogs"-pillars of light on either side of the sun-really exists. It is discussed by Kenneth Heuer in his book, Rainbows, Halos and Other Wonders. It may also be worth mentioning that Schubert died of typhus fever, not of tuberculosis.

Perhaps the Professor who wrote this review is a self-deceiver? Or from here:

Good question, figured a few people would be scratching their heads at that one. A Parhelia is an atmospheric effect which occurs when sunlight is diffracted by ice crystals in the lower atmosphere. The result is the illusion of two smaller suns on either side, or Sun dogs as they are also referred to. We have a flash demo that shows the animated effect. As the Parhelia-512 delivers top-notch quality, performance and features (three suns), supports three displays and is the world's first 512-bit GPU, what could be more appropriate than the Parhelia-512?

These are of course computer people, but quite smart, and according to Stevie, self-deceivers. Maybe this everyday person is also a self-deceiver:

I saw three suns, one on top of the other, two weeks ago in Dallas, Texas. We call these phenomena "sun dogs" in Texas.

My but the world is full of self-deceivers. Here's another one:

It was late in the afternoon. We set off again. The sun was low in the arctic north west, straddled by a pair of beautiful sun dogs, an atmospheric phenomena where the sunlight is refracted by upper atmospheric ice crystals and on either side of the sun an apparition of the sun appears. It can look as if there are three suns hanging low in the sky.

Need more, Stevie? Or do you prefer to quit while you're ahead? Stevie then tells us:

Pliny writes 'Historical record also exists of thunderbolts being either caused by or vouchsafed in answer to certain rites and prayers. There is an old story of the latter in Tuscany, when the portent which they called Olta came to the city of Bolsena, when its territory had been devastated; it was sent in answer to the prayer of its king Porsina.'

So [Holding] sees things which aren't there , and when Pliny says historical records exist of thunderbolts as answers to prayers, [Holding] goes in to denial.......

Poor Stevie! He forgot to quote some more relevant words from that passage in Pliny....

On this matter the opinion of mankind varies, in correspondence with our individual dispositions. It takes a bold man to believe that Nature obeys the behests of ritual, and equally it takes a dull man to deny that ritual has beneficent powers, when knowledge has made such progress even in the interpretation of thunderbolts that it can prophecy that others will come on a fixed day, and whether they will destroy a previous one or other previous ones that are concealed: this progress has been made by public and private experiments in both fields. In consequence although such indications are certain in some cases but doubtful in others, and approved to some persons but in the view of others to be condemned, in accordance with Nature's will and pleasure, we for our part are not going to leave out the rest of the things worth recording in this department.

Oops! Seems that Pliny doesn't attribute this to deities or divine intervention, does he? "Nature obeys" -- not Jove, even if he was the subject of the prayer? Ritual has beneficient powers -- not "the gods can do this"? Pliny may have been gullible at times, and his scientific interpretations are ofren quite fanciful from our later perspective -- but he was sure no proponent of the concept of divine intervention.

Stevie is still struggling for an apt comparsion, it seems. We'll see what he comes up with in the next strain. After all those "self-deceivers" we found, however, a smart person would drop the subject altogther.

But really, Stevie isn't that smart, now is he? At this point, it's Strike Three, and Stevie is out. He can swing at the empty bleachers if he wants to, but here's what it amounts to:

1. Stevie refuses to admit that he bungled when he called our view of sun dogs as three suns a case of "self-deceiving". Not a word about all those other "self-deceivers" as self-deceivers.
2. Stevie still refuses to admit that he bungled in reading our argument, even now saying that "[Holding] still thinks Pliny never recorded things which defied rational explanation or was atrributed to divine intervention." We said only the latter, and Stevie has yet to produce an example of this. The former we do not say, though we do say Pliny recorded things that WE know, in "hindsight", defied rational explanation -- even as he himself, not having enough data, may not have thought they did. In other words, we know that a rain of bricks, and that dog-headed people, "defy rational explanation"; but Pliny would hardly have been in a position to say so himself, lacking as he did the data that tells us what is irrational! To be a Skeptic or rationalist in Pliny's time was a much broader equation!
3. Stevie refuses to admit that he erred in quoting Pliny on these sun dogs as a counter to the idea that "[a] supreme being, whatever it be, pays heed to man's affairs is a ridiculous notion." In other words, divine intervention. It boils down to this: None of Pliny's reports that Stevie keeps hauling up -- of heavenly armies; rains of milk, blood, iron, wool or bricks; of unspoiled carrion; of fire in the sky -- are examples from Pliny of "a supreme being" paying heed to man's affairs, as the darkness was credited to be.
4. Stevie tries to save face by saying that I "[give] a link to somebody who writes about the three sun phenomenon 'In pagan times it was thought to an omen, and this belief survives also in the Christian period.' Does [Holding] agree with *his own citation* that this phenomemon was thought to be an omen? Little wonder that [Holding] usually doesn't give links!" We recommend Stevie take some medication for that paranoia. Meanwhile what does broad "pagan" belief have to do with Pliny specifically?

With that, Stevie has had his three tries, had three strikes, and is out at the plate. It's time to leave the stadium, as we think it's evident that Stevie has too many problems a) admitting error; b) finding materials that match the answer to the question. He can try again if he wants, but we'll just take this as the bottom of the ninth and be on our way. It's become an obvious case of Prov. 26:4-5 in action.