Apologetics Ministries
[Apologetics Encyclopedia of Bible Verses -- get your answers here! Look up by person's name, Scripture cite, or keyword search]
[What's New!]
[Book Reviews and Bookstore]
[Donate to the Ministry]
[Challenge to Critics]
[Mission Statement]
[Contact Us]

[Remsberg: General Profile]

Search
PicoSearch
Support Us

CrossDaily.com
Awesome
Christian
Sites 		Click Here
Vote For
This Site

Christian Top Sites
Christian Top Sites

Print out flyers for your church or school.

 Tekton Logo vertical
Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Silence of the Hams
Refuting Remsberg's List
James Patrick Holding

Amateur skeptics like to pass lists around that they borrow from outdated and irrelevant sources written by kidney specialists; one of these is a list of writers contemporary with Jesus who are alleged to have been mysteriously silent about him. You'll find this list repeated on dozens of skeptical sites (and in Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries) with gloats and smiles stapled to it, but the ultimate source of the list is John Remsberg and his book, The Christ. While this long list of names may shazam the gullible ("Wow! Look at this long list of people who didn't mention Jesus!"), once you look at this list closely, you find several problems. Some of these writers did indeed mention Jesus (which Remsberg disputes; but see our rebuttals linked below); most by far, though, would have no reason to mention Jesus (because of the sort of things they wrote), and also did not mention Christians, though they certainly existed in the time many of these writers lived, even by the admission of critics like Remsberg -- and many of them also make no mention of Jews. (As an aside Remsberg himself was equivocal in his commitment to a Christ-myth thesis, using words like "possibly" to allow that Jesus existed.)

The question Remsberg never answers is, "Why should any of these people have mentioned Jesus?" The list is presented flat, as though it is obvious that merely by being in the same century as Jesus, some irresistible and mysterious force requires these writers to make mention of him. As a reminder, let's bring up again Meier's reasons why someone like Jesus would not make it into the typical Roman or Greek history:

  • As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; he never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
  • Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts. In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
  • Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He traveled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
  • Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
  • Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
  • Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

Now let's explain what each of these writers did. Links are provided where we have discussion of a particular cite. I have used the online Columbia Encyclopedia at Bartleby.com as a source for most of these; that's really all that's necessary!

  • Josephus
  • Philo
  • Seneca -- this teacher of Nero's wrote a number of personal epistles and other works. Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject, and none of the works he wrote would have had the occasion to include Jesus. Here is a list of his writings from Bartleby.com:
    His Epistolae morales ad Lucilium are essays on ethics written for his friend Lucilius Junior, to whom he also addressed Quaestiones naturales, philosophical-rather than scientific-remarks about natural phenomena. The so-called Dialogi of Seneca include essays on anger, on divine providence, on Stoic impassivity, and on peace of soul. Other moral essays have also survived, notably De elementia, on the duty of a ruler to be merciful, and De beneficiis, on the award and reception of favors. The Apocolocyntosis is a satire on the apotheosis of Claudius. The most influential of his works, at least in so far as European literature is concerned, were his tragedies. It is generally agreed that his plays were written for recitation and not for stage performance. Nine plays, based on Greek models, are accepted as his-Hercules Furens, Medea, Troades, Phaedra, Agamemnon, Oedipus, Hercules Oetaeus, Phoenissae, and Thyestes. A tenth, Octavia, is now ascribed to a later imitator.
  • Pliny the Elder -- Pliny the Elder was a writer on science and morality issues; none of his writings would have had a reason to refer to Jesus.
  • Suetonius
  • Juvenal -- this was a writer of satires. Again, from Bartleby:
    He is known chiefly for his 16 satires, which contain a vivid representation of life in Rome under the empire. They were probably written in the years between A.D. 100 and A.D. 128. The biting tone of his diatribes has seldom been equaled. From the stern point of view of the older Roman standards he powerfully denounces the lax and luxurious society, the brutal tyranny, the affectations and immorality of women, and the criminal excesses of Romans as he saw them, especially in his earlier years.

    We would no more expect a mention of Jesus here than we would expect in your average edition of George magazine!

  • Martial -- this was a writer of poetry and satire also. How would Jesus find a place here?
  • Arrian -- this guy lived in the second century, and wrote works concerned with Alexander the Great! That's 300 years before Jesus, quite a stretch for a mention! ("Alexander defeated the Persians. By the way, this has nothing to do with Jesus, who lived 300 years later.")
  • Petronius -- this was a writer of a novel called the Satyricon. Bartleby adds: "Among the surviving fragments the most complete and valuable section is the Cena Trimalchionis (Trimalchio's Dinner), presenting a humorous episode of vulgar display on the part of a man whose great wealth is newly acquired." Maybe Jesus could have served the main course or the wine!
  • Dion Prusaeus -- this guy was an orator, a specialist in speaking skills. Do books on public speaking today go off topic to mention Jesus?
  • Paterculus -- Authored an amateurish history of Rome. Paterculus was a retired army officer of Tiberius. He published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry. Jesus never set foot in Rome, so it is hard to see where he would fit in this guy's works.
  • Appian -- a Roman historian of the second century who wrote a history of Roman conquests from the founding of Rome to Trajan; only about half of his books have survived fully intact. Again, Jesus didn't lead any Roman armies, so where would he fit here?
  • Theon of Smyrna -- a mathematician and astronomer who wrote a "handbook for philosophy students to show how prime numbers, geometrical numbers such as squares, progressions, music and astronomy are interrelated." Maybe Theon could have counted the 5000 people fed fishes and loaves?
  • Phlegon
  • Persius -- we have only a few lines from this fellow, who was a satirist who wrote six plays that we know of. Like the previous satirists, there is no reason for Jesus to be mentioned.
  • Plutarch -- this fellow wrote a large number of essays and mini-biographies. He lived until around 120 AD and of all the people on this list other than Philo and Justus, would have been the likeliest to mention Jesus. However, in light of the considerations noted above, and the bigotry of Romans towards superstitious peoples like the Jews and Egyptians, it seems unlikely that Plutarch would have put Jesus in his roster of Greco-Roman heroes.
  • Justus
  • Apollonius -- Bartleby lists over a half dozen men with this name; it is not clear which one Remsberg refers to, so I cannot comment. The closest found by our Research Assistant is a grammarian and linguist from the 2nd century.
  • Pliny the Younger
  • Tacitus
  • Quintillian -- this fellow was a writer on oratory and rhetoric. Again, where is there room for mentioning Jesus, in what was essentially a how-to manual of public speaking?
  • Lucanus -- Seneca's nephew, all we have by him is one poem and some books recording the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. Where should Jesus have been worked into it?
  • Epictetus -- Bartleby reports that this guy wrote nothing -- all his teachings were set down by a disciple!
  • Silius Italicus -- this guy was a poet who wrote a big poem about the second Punic War. Jesus was there, of course, serving in the chow tents...?
  • Statius -- this guy was a poet who wrote the Thebaid, about the Seven against Thebes, the Achilleid, a life of Achilles, and a collection of poems called the Silvae. I see plenty of reason to mention Jesus, don't you?
  • Ptolemy -- another astronomer and mathematician who lived in the second century. I might suppose some skeptics want a mention of the Star of Bethlehem, but if as I suppose it was mostly a natural phenomenon interpreted by the magi astrologically, Ptolemy may have mentioned it, but would hardly have connected it to Jesus -- even if he knew that connection Christians made, which he would have dismissed as superstitious nonsense; it would need to be shown that Ptolemy also had an interest in things like astrology and omens from other nations.
  • Hermogones -- the only person I have found by this name was a second-century Stoic painter whose material was addressed by Tertullian. It is not clear if this is who Remsberg refers to, so I will have to leave this one alone for now.
  • Valerius Maximus -- wrote a book of anecdotes for orators around 30 AD. In other words, the ancient equivalent to one of those desktop Dilbert calendars. Where does Jesus belong in this?
  • Pompon Mela -- Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" found this one for us; the problem was that Remsberg didn't give the full name. Pomponius Mela was a Roman geographer from Spain and would have no reason to mention Jesus.
  • Quintius Curtus -- this fellow wrote a history of Alexander the Great -- again, where would Jesus fit into this?
  • Lucian
  • Pausanias -- a Greek traveler and geographer of the second century who wrote a ten-volume work called Descriptions of Greece. Check your travel guidebooks for Greece for mentions of Jewish miracle workers in a different country!
  • Valerius Flaccus -- a poet of the first century who wrote a work called the Argonautica. Does anyone want to explain where Jesus fits into this one?
  • Florus Lucius -- Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" has found this to be a Roman historian who was interested in dates prior to the birth of Christ. No help here for Remsberg.
  • Favorinus -- a skeptical philosopher of the second century who wrote works of rhetoric. As with the other such works above, no reason to mention Jesus here.
  • Phaedrus -- this fellow was an author of fables (like Aesop's). He would no more mention Jesus than would the Grimm Brothers.
  • Damis -- this is the guy who wrote the bio of Apollonius of Tyana -- he lived in the second century and doesn't mention Jesus, most likely because he has his own man to promote!
  • Aulus Gellius -- a second-century lawyer who put together collection of essays on law, antiquities, and various other subjects. Sounds like a nice place to mention Jesus!
  • Columella -- this fellow wrote about agriculture and trees! No comment needed!
  • Dio Chrysostom -- an orator of the second century who wrote eighty orations on literary, political, and philosophical subjects. I see no room for a mention of Jesus here.
  • Lysias -- the only person by this name in Bartleby lived in 400-300 BC! I'll have to look into this one further.
  • Appion of Alexandria -- a second-century historian who wrote a history of Rome in 24 books. Again, Jesus had no part in Rome's history, so why should he be mentioned here?

In closing: In almost all cases, Remsberg's writers are either the sort who would not mention Jesus anyway (being writers of either fiction, poetry, or on mundane and practical matters like oratory and agriculture, or historians or writers of another time or place). The few left over, like Plutarch or Tacitus, either did mention Jesus or else would be too bigoted to make the special diversion, unless (as with Tacitus) they had some corollary reason to look into the movement (Tacitus was trying to show Nero's cruelty). My challenge to skeptics: Show me why each of these writers should have mentioned Jesus. Remsberg's say-so ain't gonna cut it.

In recent days a response to this article was made by one "Iasion," a rather uncritical and snobbish sort with his ear to the mouth of Earl Doherty. As might be expected it is vague and reflects the failure of fans of Remsberg to do more than pompously strut the list around as though it had any meaning. To some credit, Iasion admits that yes, this list is bandied around a lot; and yes, "some of the names on the list do not belong, because they just could not be expected to have mentioned Jesus" and as well, the list "is also without dates and subjects and places, and is unclear in identifying some authors." That by itself wins Iasion a brownie, but because of what follows, we're taking it back and returning the fried goat liver.

Iasion begins with some "factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work," some of questionable value. The first:

a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)

Sorry, but "a large work" is no factor at all in this issue. There is no more reason to expect a 200 page work from Columella about agriculture to name Jesus than a 100 page work. That Iasion even thinks this is relevant indicates that he is scraping barrel bottom.

a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,

This one would be admissible, but we will see it is far too vague as applied. "Somehow related" is of such fogginess that it may as well be argued:

  • Author X talks about robes.
  • Jesus wore a robe.
  • So X must have mentioned Jesus.

    Indeed most or all of Iasion's points using this reasoning are of this nature, where he strecthes for whatever tangent he can reach for to suppose that Jesus ought to have been mentioned. Let me add as well that Iasion thoughly ignores our precursorial data as provided by Meier and others, explaining why Jesus would not be mentioned.

    a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people,

    In essence this is just another version of 1 and 2 put together. "Many subjects" is so vague as to be criminal; what is needed is evidence that the writer deals in specific subjects relevant to the person of Jesus.

    In the end, Iasion ends up with a classification system of whether Jesus ought to be mentioned in various writers. We will exclude comment on those he admits would not mention Jesus. He ends up with:

  • 1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)
  • 3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)
  • 31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus
  • 20 who would not be expected to

    Iasion also makes brief comments on writers who did mention Jesus, but which he dismisses for various reasons.

    Some preliminaries to start. Iasion incorrectly summarizes my arguments:

    In other words, JPHolding's argument assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject.

    Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.

    That is a mangling of my argument, which is that one needs to provide adequate justification to argue that a writer should have mentioned someone or something; it is not enough to point to other minor figures mentioned, for two reasons:

  • Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to the absurd conclusion that a writer is obliged to name every minor figure everywhere or go into every possible subject on the side. If Jesus, then why not Shammai and Hillel? If Jesus, why not Gamiliel? If Jesus, why not Nero's third cousin twice removed? If Jesus, why not every member of the Roman Senate? Indeed, since we have previously issued a "Gamiliel Challenge" elsewhere, we will use that as a template to reply to Iasion: By his "reasoning" we will see that it is just as conspicuous a problem that Gamaliel (or some other person, as appropriate) is not mentioned by these writers.
  • We will see that in all cases, Iasion neither names nor describes any of these minor figures, nor does he show that they are not germane to the subject matter of the person writing; much less does he show (as he can not) that said minor persons were of less relevance to the writer than Jesus.

    Now let us begin with the list.

    PHILO

    Iasion missed my link on this subject. Philo is questionable as a reference; he may have died before Jesus did, and he certainly died before Christianity became a signficiant force. But here especially the Gamilel Challenge hurts Iasion badly. Note how it destroys his reasons why Philo ought to mention Jesus:

  • Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul -- so was Gamieliel
  • Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there -- if anything this gives more reason why it is odd that there is no mention of Gamaliel; Gamaliel served there, while Jesus was a Galileean who rarely ventured into Jerusalem
  • he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit -- this one is patently false. The "logos" idea was already paralleled in Judaism by the figure of Wisdom, and it is with that which Jesus is identified -- not Philo's hellenized logos. The idea of the holy spirit was also part of the Wisdom tradition.
  • he was considered a Christian by some later Christians -- why this is of any relevance is not stated. Philo can hardly have anticipated what later writers would have said mistakenly about him.
  • he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues -- OK, so then why didn't he mention Gamaliel? This point is so vague as to be worthless, at any rate. What times? What peoples? What issues?

    So we conclude that Iasion is talking out of his hat to claim that "If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings." If anythingm it is certain he would not have, for the very idea that the Logos could have become incarnate would have disgusted him.

    Rating: SHOULD NOT have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, and did not.

    Weight: 0

    SENECA

    Iasion vaguely begins, "His troubles with Nero did not stop him writing many works about many subjects (un-related to Nero), why on Earth would they would stop him writing about Jesus?" Iasion fails to see that to write about Jesus would require Seneca to do some original research, on a subject far removed from him by geography, time, and interest. What Iasion needs to show is first, that these "many subjects" (whatever they were!) would require the same or similar amounts of original research, and then explain why then Seneca would also not write about persons like Gamaliel, Hillel, Shammai, or other sages. Once again, Iasion's line of reasoning is so vague that it proves too much.

    Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

    That Stoicism was "sympathetic to Christian teachings" is neither shown nor explained. In addition, even if true, Iasion needs to then show that other schools of thought to which Stocism was sympathetic were also discussed by Seneca. But in fact Stoicism differed from Christianity in highly fundamental ways: it was materialistic and pantheistic. Nor does Iasion show that any Stoic source expressed "sympathy" with Christianity, much less at the crucial period.

    In fact, early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul. How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

    If indeed there was a "void" problem, it seems odd that in these materials (see here), Seneca and Paul nowhere mention Jesus or Christ as a person! Whatever the motive of these works, it was certainly not to fill a "void" with respect to a historical Jesus. (In all likelihood, it was intended as a fictitious "what if" dialogue comparing Stoic and Christian thought.) Thus:

    Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD NOT have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, and did not.

    Weight: 0

    PLUTARCH

    JPHolding argues that Plutarch would not mention Jesus (in the roster of Greco-Roman heroes) because they didn't want to hear about superstitions from the Jews or Egyptians. Yet, Plutarch wrote a great deal more than a roster of heroes, and one of his works is on "Isis and Osiris" - an Egyptian myth - the very thing JPHolding suggests Plutarch would NOT write about.

    This is yet another false characterization of my argument. Plutarch writes of Osiris and Isis not as historical personages, but about their religion. I do not say Plutarch would exclude discussion of religion, but that he would not include an Egyptian or Jewish person among those in a particular sort of work he composed (heroic biographies). That said, since Plutarch does not mention Christians either, and barely mentions the Jews (and when he does, makes egregious errors about them, such as that, in "Quæstiones Conviviales," 4.5, Jews "abstained from eating the flesh of the hare because it resembled the ass, which is an animal worshiped by them."), and not even Iasion would deny that Christians existed in Plutarch's time, Iasion once again proves too much in his quest. By the same token, Iasion gives us no reason why Plutarch would not mention Shammai, Hillel, or Gamaliel.

    Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the Vision of Aridaeus, a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -

    That is very interesting, but proves nothing whatsoever; and its relevance is not explained. More:

    Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus, --precisely my point: Influential Roman figures. Not Jewish or Christian ones. By this loose reasoning a lack of reference to Hillel, et al is just as mysterious.

    Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies) -- proving what? So why no references in Plutarch to the Jewish prophets by name?

    Plutarch wrote on moral issues, -- again, proving what? Iasion has now logically obligated Plutarch to mention countless moralists of his day, and has relegated them to non-existence simply because he has not mentioned them.

    Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues. -- the same point applies. All of this is simply Iasion making vague stretches to broad subjects, as though this makes it obvious that Jesus ought to have been mentioned by virtue of these vague connections. But as always, it "proves" too much.

    Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD NOT have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, and did not.

    Weight: 0

    JUSTUS

    I noted that we lack this fellow's works, and so have no way to judge appropriateness. Iasion replies:

    As I pointed out in my post above, we know from Photius that Justus did NOT mention Jesus. His book was a history of the Jewish leaders.

    Photius read Justus and notes that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

    This remains a non-answer, for without Justus' works we have no idea whether Photius was justified in his indignance at lack of mention of Jesus, or if he was merely being like Iasion -- childishly demanding mentions based on loose and vague connections. But Iasion gives away the store with his description: The title of Justus' work was A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews, and Photius saus he begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. In other words, it is clear that Photius is complaining about Justus not mentioning Jesus -- whom he, but not Justus, views as the King of the Jews -- in a work that is specifically about the kings of the Jews. Thus Photius' objection is as empty as Iasion's.

    It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

    In that case, we need to ask whether Justus also mentioned people like Shammai, Hillel, and Gamaliel. It would be just as "surprising" to a Jew if he did not -- if indeed they were so logically devoid as to claim that mentions of these persons were required.

    Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD NOT have mentioned Jesus, and did not.

    Weight: 0

    DAMIS

    I noted, "this is the guy who wrote the bio of Apollonius of Tyana -- he lived in the second century and doesn't mention Jesus, most likely because he has his own man to promote!" Iasion retorts with the cockeyed observation that Apollonius "was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus" (false -- he was later in the first century) "and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person." (What authors these were is not said, much less are their arguments presented.) And in conclusion: "If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected." Since they were not at all contemporaries, that is of course false; but this is merely a bare denial of my point, that Jesus was a competitor to NOT be mentioned. But even so, why not mention, let us say rather than Gamaliel, the Jewish/Galileean miracle worker Honi the Circle Drawer? He too was "similar to Jesus" (Galileean holy man and miracle worker) so why not from Damis also?

    Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, as well as Gamaliel or Honi the Circle Drawer, but did not.

    Weight: 0

    PLINY THE ELDER

    Iasion merely plays the same card of vague connecting of dots: Issues of MORALITY are not related to Christianity? How many Christians here would agree with JPHolding that morality is not related to Jesus' alleged teachings? Very well, then, Iasion has just obligated Pliny to mention countless other prominent moral teachers of his day, including Hillel and Shammai. Where are they in his work? They are not there. It could be further added that it would be simply false to argue (as some popular writers do) that Jesus' moral teachings were in any sense unique.

    Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)

    Surely Iasion jests. "Hundreds" of people? And by what means has he decided on who is "major" and "minor"? And in what chapters of NH does he seem room for Jesus? Perhaps the one on Spain and Italy? The one on insects? (The section on bees listed literally dozens of people, no?) We'd like a list of those "hundreds" (a minimum of 200), please. As for not mentioning the darkness, we covered that canard before:

    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.

    So it is indeed completely unreasonable to demand that Pliny ought to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events. Indeed, why not mention Honi the Circle-Drawer and his ability to make rain in his sections on weather?

    Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, and also could easily have mentioned Honi the Circle Drawer -- but had no reason to.

    Weight: 0

    JUVENAL

    This is one of Iasion's silliest retorts:

    According to JPHolding, Roman satirists would NOT possibly be expected to mention Jesus or Christianity. But, Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. This example proves such an argument false.

    This is once again a blatant misrepresentation of what I argue. Certainly, Christianity was ONE potential subject for satire. But it was hardly the ONLY subject; there were literally hundreds of possible political, social, or religious targets for a satrist like Juvenal. So why not also complain that he does not satirize the stuffy Jewish leadership under Shammai and Hillel (especially since Jews were particular targets of disdain for Romans)? Again Iasion "proves too much" with his far too broad arguments.

    Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, as well as Hillel, Shammai, and Gamaliel, but did not.

    Weight: 0

    MARTIAL

    This one is a repeat of the one above with Juvenal, and requires no comment. Here again also Iasion stretches his own credibility by straining to find vague parallels to events in Jesus' life:

    Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :

    Stoic suffering of discomfort and death, -- so this requires a mention of Jesus' suffering of discomfort and death? Fascinating. So Jesus was the only person in antiquity otherwise to suffer so? Why then is Iasion not objecting to Martial offering full lists of every person who suffered so?

    virgin's blood, -- not sure what the point here is, since there is no "virgin's blood" matter in Christianity.

    Roman funerary practices, -- tremendous! So now Jesus was the only person otherwise to have been subjected to funerary practices (but Jewish, not Roman ones)?

    the way accused men look in court, -- yes, and Jesus was the only person ever tried as well. And on it goes; we need not deal with each specific offered. The flaw remains the same.

    Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, as well as thousands of other people who had been put on trial, anointed with oil, etc., but did not.

    Weight: 0

    PETRONIUS

    The answer here is much the same; once again Iasion stretches to the limit to strain out a required reference to Jesus:

    Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :

    a CRUCIFIXION ! -- how exciting! How many thousands of people did the Romans crucify, again? Why not mention the thousands of Pharisees crucified in the Maccabbean era?

    a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen, -- one would like a reference to where this is in the work; in a search of it here I find nothing of the sort. In any event, why this requires Petronius to make mention of Jesus' situation is not explained. I think further that Iasion is confused by this passage:

    In the meantime there happening a trial of criminals, the condemn'd were order'd to be crucify'd near the vault in which the lady was weeping o're the corps of her late husband. The soldier that guarded the bodies lest any might be taken from the cross and bury'd, the night after observ'd a light in the vault, and hearing the groans of some afflicted person, prest with a curiosity common to mankind, he desired to know, who, or what it was? Upon which he enter'd the vault, and seeing a very beautiful woman, amaz'd at first, he fancy'd 'twas a spirit, but viewing the dead body, and considering her tears and torn face, he soon guest, as it was, that the lady cou'd not bear the loss of her husband: he brings his supper with him into the vault, and began to perswade the mournful lady not to continue her unnecessary grief, nor with vain complaints consume her health: That death was common to all men; and many other things he told her, that use to restore afflicted persons to that calmness they before enjoy'd: But she mov'd anew at the comfort a stranger offer'd, redoubl'd her grief, and tearing her hair, cast it on the body that lay before her.

    The guard was placed not over the tomb, but (in line with standard Roman practice) over the crucified bodies, still on the cross! But apparently Iasion expects this to have been written:

    In the meantime there happening a trial of criminals, like that Jesus Christians worship was a criminal, the condemn'd were order'd to be crucify'd, like Jesus was, near the vault in which the lady was weeping o're the corps of her late husband, like Mary Magdalene at Jesus' own vault. The soldier that guarded the bodies lest any might be taken from the cross and bury'd, much the same way the guards watched Jesus' tomb, the night after observ'd a light in the vault, the one likes Jesus, and hearing the groans of some afflicted person, like Jesus on the cross, prest with a curiosity common to mankind, he desired to know, who, or what it was? Upon which he enter'd the vault, the one like Jesus', and seeing a very beautiful woman, kinda like Mary of Bethany, amaz'd at first, he fancy'd 'twas a spirit, but viewing the dead body, and considering her tears and torn face, he soon guest, as it was, that the lady cou'd not bear the loss of her husband: he brings his supper with him into the vault, the one like Jesus', and began to perswade the mournful lady not to continue her unnecessary grief, nor with vain complaints consume her health: just like Jesus comforted Mary Magdalene. That death was common to all men, even Jesus; and many other things he told her, that use to restore afflicted persons to that calmness they before enjoy'd, like Jesus to his disciples: But she mov'd anew at the comfort a stranger offer'd, redoubl'd her grief, and tearing her hair, which was like the hair Jesus' feets was wiped with, cast it on the body that lay before her, much as Jesus' body laid in his own tomb.

    a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision, -- actually, quite common in the ancient world; so why not also mention the vision of Romulus appearing alive?

    gods such as Bacchus and Ceres, -- so is Yahweh mentioned in the Satyricon?

    writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus, -- and so on; there is no need to go further, as Iasion gets into such a frenzy that his last entry is "baths, shipwrecks, meals," as if any of this ought to bring in Jesus. Once again he proves too much, and obligates Petronius to mention anything and everything under the sun.

    Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, and also could have mentioned ants, crickets, dead animals, and video games, but did not.

    Weight: negative 2

    PAUSANIAS

    Iasion seems proud of himself on this one:

    Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. And guess what, JPHolding? He DOES in fact mention a Jewish prophetess - Phokis, Book X, 12, [5] "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Not quite a "Jewish miracle worker", but almost - essentially unknown, mentioned by Pausanias, when Jesus is not. Hoist by his own petard :-)

    Oh, really? So where are Hillel, Gamaliel, Shammai, then? There's room on the petard for you, Iasion. Beyond this Iasion evades the necessity of showing that Pausanius' mention of Sabbe is not germane to his purpose, and that Jesus would be. Sabbe was one of FOUR sibyls whom Pausanias lists from various parts of the world (such as Libya). It was not her "Jewishness" that got Sabbe her mention; it was her powers as one of four sibyllian oracles (not a "prophetess" in the least).

    Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian. And a huge number of minor figues from within and without Greece.

    Since Jesus was not alive in the time of Hadrian, what this is supposed to signify is unknown. The second part once again ends up proving more than Iasion wants: No Hillel, no Shammai, no Gamaliel. Also, no Apollonious of Tyana. No Seneca. So now do these guys not exist?

    Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, Hillel, Seneca, etc. but did not.

    Weight: negative 6

    EPICTETUS

    Iasion complains that Jesus wrote nothing either, which is beside the point, which is that Remsberg misused him as a reference. Beyond this Iasion makes no effort to show that the person who wrote down Epi's stuff, a guy named Arrian, ought to have mentioned Jesus; his sole point is to note that Arrian mention "Galileeans" which means that Arrian is now obliged to list everyone who lived in Galilee, by this logic. As usual Iasion merely cites some general criteria which ends up proving too much. And then, why not also mention Josephus, a famous historian who was appointed to govern Galilee?

    Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, as well as Josephus, but did not.

    Weight: 0

    AELIUS ARISTIDES

    Just another strain here, as Iasion says: Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine " (Orations 46.2) If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus. And Hillel, and Shammai, and everyone else in Palestine too. Jews were also considered impious by the Romans, after all.

    Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, as well as Hillel and Shammai and Gamaliel, but did not.

    Weight: 0

    FRONTO

    Iasion adds now to Remsberg's list, referring to "Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote [who] several letters in mid 2nd century," adding, "According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus." But Iasion does not explain which of Fronto's extant letters ought to have mentioned Jesus, much less explain why, and why they don't mention the likes of Hillel, etc. either.

    Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, as well as Shammai, Hillel, etc. but did not.

    Weight: 0

    PERSIUS

    Iasion merely repeats his argument about Juvenal and Martial.

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, as well as Hillel, Shammai, etc. but did not.

    Weight: 0

    DIO CHRYSOSTOM

    Iasion at this point as much as admits his inability to come up with reasons for people at this level to mention Jesus, appealing only to his "large number of works" as a reason. So why not Hillel, Shammai, Gamiliel then?

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, and the Jewish leaders, but did not.

    Weight: 0

    AULUS GELLIUS

    Same as above; Iasion merely makes vague appeal to "a large work which covered many topics and mentioned many people" as a sole reason to mention Jesus.

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, and lots of other notable people, but did not.

    Weight: 0

    LUCIUS APULEIUS

    MARCUS AURELIUS

    MUSONIUS RUFUS

    HIEROCLES

    MAXIMUS of TYRE

    ARRIAN

    APPIAN

    For all of these, Iasion's excuse is the same: Largeness of their portfolio means they "could have" mentioned Jesus. But then why not dozens of other leading persons?

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, and dozens of other persons, but did not.

    Weight: 0.0

    THEON of SMYRNA

    In addition to the above excuse about largeness, a repeat of commentary re Pliny over the Star of Bethlehem and crucifixion darkness. In other words, nothing new, much less a show that Theon managed an exhaustive catalog of stellar phenonema of the day. Does he, for example, mention the appearances of Halley's Comet every century?

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, and Honi the Circle Drawer, but did not.

    Weight: 0.0

    QUINTILIAN

    This is the biggest joke in the lot as Iasion says, One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds. If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus. No, sorry -- Jesus' speeches were not examples of polished Greco-Roman rhetoric, which is what Quinty was all about.

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but had no reason to.

    Weight: 0.0

    LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

    Though he did write of times before Jesus, Iasion's sole argument is that because he "wrote a large work which mentions many names," Florus "could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him." So where are Gamiliel and Shammai then?

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, or Shammai, or Gamaliel, but did not.

    Weight: 0.0

    LUCAN

    Admitting he wrote of the civil war only, Iasion resorts to the despairing counsel that Lucan "mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing" -- so again, why not Hillel, Gamaliel, and Shammai? Iasion needs to show a context for Jesus that matches contexts which suited Lucan when he (for example) "mentions an event from 56CE" or "places as far afield as Sicily and Kent" -- not just take difference in subjects generally as a reason to bring up Jesus specifically.

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, Hillel, Shammai, etc. but did not.

    Weight: 0.0

    STATIUS

    HERO of ALEXANDRIA

    GEMINUS

    ALBINUS, etc.

    Nothing again but the appeal to having written a lot, or in the case of Albinus and those beneath him (we will not bother listing them all), no reason at all other than "he could have."

    Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, Hillel, Shammai, etc. but did not.

    Weight: 0.0

    Finally Iasion refers to WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS and here missed a link I gave explaining all of them: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html -- of those he and I deal with, he issues the following arguments:

    TACITUS

    Iasion uses all the usual dud arguments:

  • he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' -- As Chilton and Evans remark, "(t)his 'error' should not be taken as evidence that Tacitus' information is faulty." [ChilEv.Stud, 465] . Two reasons may be cited for this: 1. Evidence indicates that there was a certain fluidity in the usage of these terms. 2. Tacitus may have been anachronizing on purpose.

    1. What evidence is there for the easy interchange of these terms? Meier notes [Meie.MarJ, 100] that in a "backwater province" like Judea, there was probably not much difference between the two roles. This assertion is backed up by literary evidence. Philo and Josephus were not consistent in the usage of the terms either: Josephus calls Pilate a "procurator" in Antiquities 18.5.6, the story about Pilate bringing images into Jerusalem. (It has not been suggested, but we may wonder if, in a backwater like Judea, Pilate may have held both titles!) In practical terms, "both the procurators and prefects in Judea had the power to execute criminals who were not Roman citizens." [VanV.JONT, 48] Practically, in this context, "A difference that is no difference, is no difference." (For what it is worth, the Secular Web's Richard Carrier has now stated: "It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here."

    2. Tacitus may have used an anachronistic term for his own reasons. The first reason may have been to avoid confusion. Sanders [Sand.HistF, 23] cites inscriptional evidence that the position held by Pilate was called "prefect " in 6-41 A.D., but "procurator" in the years 44-66, so he deduces that Tacitus was simply using the term with which his readers would be most familiar. (This is a far better point than we may realize: Being that Tacitus' readers were - like he had been - members of the Senate and holders of political office [Dor.Tac, 64] , we must suppose that this "error" escaped not only Tacitus' attention, but theirs as well! We may as well suggest that a United States Senate historian's error of the same rank would pass without comment!)

    The second reason for this use of terminology may be deliberate anachronizing on Tacitus' part. Kraus and Woodman [KrWoo.LHn, 111] note that Tacitus often uses "archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary" and also "avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms." They do not cite the prefect/procurator issue specifically, but it is worth asking, in light of this comment, if the usage might not have been simply part of Tacitus' normal practice. (In fact, Harris [Harr.GosP5, 349] does indeed suggest a conscious [or unconscious] anachronizing.)

    All of the above, therefore - along with the fact that this is not cited by Tactiean scholars as a problem - shows that there is certainly no grounds for charging Tacitus with error or degrading the reference to Jesus because of the alleged procurator/prefect mixup.

  • he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ ') -- Like the above objection, however, it is not considered at all problematic by any Tacitean or other historian. Rather than find some deficiency in Tacitus because of this, it is more plausible to recognize that Tacitus would use the name with which his readers would be most familiar - and that would not necessarily be the name that Jesus was executed under. Furthermore, simply referring to "Jesus" would not explain how it is that Jesus' followers were named Christians; Van Voorst [VanV.JONT, 43ff] further makes the point that Tacitus is actually issuing a subtle corrective here! The text of the oldest manuscript, and most likely reading, spells "Christians" with an e ("Chrestians"). In naming "Christ," Tacitus "is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the 'crowd' (vulgus) by stating that the 'founder of this name'...is Christus, not the common name given by the crowd, Chrestus...he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement in order to link it directly--and correctly--to the name of Christ." It should be further added that the NT itself tended towards the direction of using "Christ" as though it were a proper name, and that Tacitus (and Pliny as well) may be reflecting this. [VanV.JONT, 46]
  • and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions. -- this reason is so silly is almost requires no comment. It is of course a point in favor of Christianity's divine origins.
  • probably late hearsay -- which also discounts all else Tacitus writes of from the same period, and is thus useless. That said, see http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacrel from material by credentialed historians on Tacitus' reliability, which discounts any idea of him using hearsay uncritically.

    Weight: 250 pounds

    Go Home!
    		•