RESPONSE TO STEVEN BOLLINGER'S "OPEN LETTER"
Michael Paulkovich

Normally I would not waste my time to put any effort into one of the many amateurish attempts to refute research, but Steven Bollinger's slapdash blog is so full of errors that I would be remiss to let him slide, and to allow his readers (how many or few they may be) to take his misinformed and poorly researched assertions as anywhere near valid and accurate.

Click for Bollinger's Open Letter of September 29, 2014.

Let us consider Bollinger's assertions one by one:

Bollinger:
"...And I would just love to see a list of those 126 (or more) writers."

MY RESPONSE: So, Mr. Bollinger, you wrote your 'critique' without even having read my article? That does not seem very responsible or wise.

You'll find the list in my book, supported by some 25 pages of detailed references in the appendix. I'll be glad to send you a copy, or perhaps you might wait for the 2nd edition (with Foreword by Robert M. Price) to be published by AA Press early this year. By the way, the Free Inquiry article is available here: "The Fable of the Christ"

Bollinger:
"You see, I've been studying ancient history and literature for a long, long time, and had been under the impression that the number was more like 0."

MY RESPONSE: So, you admit that you are unfamiliar with John Remsburg's work, the prime author I addressed? That's a shame.

Mr. Bollinger, it's not, as you say "more like 0." If you would care to read The Christ by Remsburg you will find that he listed 42 authors shortly after Jesus who should have, but did not mention him. I added to Remsburg's list and stopped my research at 126.
So your conclusion, "that the number was more like 0" is off by at least 126. I've not read your other contributions to scholarly research, but are they always this shoddy?

Bollinger:
"You obviously have a huge brain and know many things which I do not." -

MY RESPONSE: Come on, Mr. Bollinger, would you like to be grown up about this or not?

Bollinger::
[On Titus] "Is it strange that we kind find no mention of Jesus in his writings? Well, no. Because, you see, none of Titus' writings are known to us. "

MY RESPONSE:
Sorry, you are completely wrong. Quoting from my book: "Titus Aristo, Roman jurist, writer, and friend of Pliny the younger, Pliny speaking highly of Aristo's virtue and learning. Author of several books, and pupil of Cassius, died c. 105 CE. (Not to be confused with Aristo of Ceos, Aristo of Chios, or Aristo of Alexandria.)" [No Meek Messiah, p. 346.] If Titus Aristo had written of Jesus, Christian copyists surely would have preserved those works.

Bollinger:
"...and the Jewish authors Josephus (mentions Jesus)... "

MY RESPONSE:
No, Josephus never mentioned Jesus, as I demonstrate exhaustively in my chapter "Josephus' Coat of Many Colors" (p.191). His works were quite obviously interpolated. Have you ever read the works of Josephus? I sincerely doubt it.

Bollinger:
"...Philo, and Tecitus (mentions Christians). "

MY RESPONSE:
You mean Tacitus, not Tecitus. And no, neither Philo nor Tacitus mentioned Jesus. I cover this in my book (see pages 43-50), and other authors have also demonstrated that Tacitus never wrote of Jesus.

Where do you get the Philo stuff? He would have been the best case for a Jesus historicity, being coeval and close-by, but Philo never wrote of Jesus. I guess you've never read anything by Philo, either. No surprise!

If you have evidence that Philo wrote of Christians then you will surely receive the Nobel Prize, because you will be the first one to bring this evidence forward.

Bollinger:
"Maximus. There's a 2nd-century Athenian philosopher named Maximus. Show me he had ever heard of Judea or Galilee, and then we can talk about..."

MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Bollinger, I wrote of Maximus Tyrius - Greek rhetorician, writer, and philosopher of the second century CE. Forty one of his Dissertations are extant. See:
    Enfield, William, The History of Philosophy, from the Earliest Periods, p. 321.
    Platts, John, A Universal Biography, Vol. II, 145-6.
    Tennemann, Wilhelm Gottlieb, A Manual of the History of Philosophy, 161-3.

Bollinger:
"Moeragenes. Never heard of him."

MY RESPONSE:
Apparently if Bollinger never heard of someone, he or she is not a valid source!

However, I did not include Moeragenes in my list of Silent Historians. I merely mention him in the article, and in my first book. I would not expect Bollinger to know this, since he wrote his refutation completely blind and never having read the Free Inquiry article (a seemingly unwise thing to do).

Mr. Bollinger, Moeragenes corresponded with Apollonius in the first century, and we have some of his letters even today. Moeragenes' writings are mentioned by Church Father Origin in Contra Celsum, early third century.See No Meek Messiah, pp 176-183, and 330.

Bollinger:
"Soterichus Oasites. A Soterichus who lived around AD 300 wrote poems about Alexander the Great and Dionysus. Hm, yeah, very strange that he didn't toss any mention of Jesus into those."

MY RESPONSE:
Well, since you never read the article that you have attempted to refute, it does not surprise me that you jump on Soterichus - but I did not include him in my list. So, another moot and invalid point on your part. I merely mentioned that Soterichus wrote about Apollinius and was mentioned in the Suda, Sigma 877.

Bollinger:
"Euphrates. That's a river, not a writer."

MY RESPONSE:
I suppose you could not have been bothered, Mr. Bollinger, to take 30 seconds and research this? Euphrates of Tyre was a stoic philosopher in the middle of the first century CE. Caius Musonius Rufus was his teacher, and Pliny the Younger was his friend. "That's a river, not a writer" is the best you could do? See No Meek Messiah, p. 335. See also Jones, Letters of Apollonius, and Jones, C. P., The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom.

Bollinger:
"Marcus Aurelius. He was relatively friendly toward Jews. This may be the strongest straw you have to grasp at."

MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Bollinger, I did not include Aurelius in my list of silent writers, so your point here is once again moot and impotent, a non sequitur. The "straw" you accuse me of grasping doesn't even exist, it was not a part of my claim.

Bollinger:
"Damis of Hierapolis. None of this Damis' work has survived, and none of this Apollonius' either"

MY RESPONSE:
Wrong, Bollinger, so very wrong. We have many letters of Apollonius, to him and from him, and Eusebius in his fourth century Preparation for the Gospel wrote of Apollonius, quoting his work "On Sacrifices." Apollonius also wrote a Biography of Pythagoras and other works.

And surely if Damis had written anything of Jesus, Christian copyists would have preserved and propagated it. Apparently they did not, strong evidence that Damis was unaware of Jesus.

You will find the letters of Apollonius in their original Greek in the Library of Congress: Eilhard Lumin, Ex Officina Commeliniana, a text from the year 1601 CE: Epistolae Apollonii Tyanei, Anacharsidis, Euripidis, Theanus, alioru´mque ad eosdem. Heidelberg: Ex officina Commeliniana, 1601. See LC Control No. 2008570706, call number PA3487 .E4 1601, Jefferson Collection (Rare Book/Special Collections Reading Room [Jefferson LJ239]).

You would do well to read the works of Maria Dzielska, E. L. Bowie, and Philostratus. Educate yourself first on subjects you attempt to analyze.

Bollinger:
"I found the list! Of all 126, or is it more by now? 3/4 of the way to the bottom of the linked page: The Silent Historians, he calls them. Stayed tuned, readers. This is gonna be fun."

MY RESPONSE:
Thanks, it has indeed been fun. Mr. Bollinger, I have to ask, why would you bother to make a blog on a subject with which you are almost completely unfamiliar? I would be thoroughly embarrassed if I were the author of such erroneous discourse. Perhaps there is no way to remove a contribution to blogspot.com and you're stuck with your "Open Letter," I don't know.





On another posting of Bollinger:


Bollinger:
"1. Okay. Let's start with those on the list who, contrary to Paulkovich's assertions, actually do mention Jesus or Christians: Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus."

MY RESPONSE:
I'm sorry, Bollinger, again, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus never mentioned Jesus. Have you even read their works? Or perhaps you just stick to Christian apologetic web sites.

The writing of Josephus were clearly interpolated as I demonstrated in my first book, and as you will also find in the works of Robert M. Price, Frank Zindler, Richard Carrier and others. I provide solid proofs, in many ways, regarding the forgeries imposed upon Josephus, if you would just take the time to read my first book. Josephus never wrote of Jesus of Nazareth.

Similarly I prove that Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus never wrote of Jesus - and even if they did, we are well into the 2nd century - by far, not contemporaries. Why are you so desperate to prove Jesus was a character of history, in view of so much evidence to the contrary?

Bollinger:
"And many non-Christian writers before AD 300, Paulkovich's cut-off point, who do mention Jesus or Christians, who are not on his list."

MY RESPONSE:
1. Where do you get this "AD 300" cut-off date? My list includes only first and second century sources. Oh, that's right. You did not do any research before writing your blog.

2. Surely you are kidding on this AD 300 point. Any writer, whether Christian or non-Christian, after the c. 70 CE who mentions Jesus is worthless toward proving a Jesus historicity. Two reasons: (a) completely and utterly non-contemporary, and (b) the Gospels were in circulation!

Even Josephus, had he written of Jesus (which he did not, as I have shown, and others have shown, his works definitely interpolated), all that would mean is that he was in possession of the text of Mark or of the Q author!

Laughably, Josephus is the best that Jesus-believers can do, and even his works were almost 100 years after Jesus' supposed birth!
Even Paul, decades before Josephus seems to know nothing about Jesus' earthly life. As I wrote in the article,

The Bible venerates the artist formerly known as Saul of Tarsus, but he was a man essentially oblivious to his savior. Paul was unaware of the virgin mother and ignorant of Jesus’s nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial, and harrowing passion. Paul didn’t know where or when Jesus lived and considered the crucifixion metaphorical (Gal. 2:19–20). Unlike what is claimed in the Gospels, Paul never indicated that Jesus had come to Earth. And the “five hundred witnesses” claim (1 Cor. 15) is a forgery.

Mr. Bollinger, it would behoove you to read the works of Robert M. Price, Frank Zindler, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, Rene Salm, Joseph Wheless, John M. Allegro, Godfrey Higgins, Salomon Reinach, Prosper Alfaric, Alvar Ellegård, David Fitzgerald, and Thomas Brodie to name just a few.

CONCLUSION
Of course, Bollinger has written much more, with his minimalist approach to research and so poorly argued that I won't bother dignifying such malarkey with a response. I don't know why he is so desperate for a mythical figure to have actually existed, and all the sources Bollinger used to "prove" Jesus are poor - either known forgeries, or simply moot (too late to be even remotely compelling to prove a historicity).

Mine is not the argument from silence, but was an exercise to see if Remsburg's list was exhaustive. I proved that it was not. And consensus of scholarship is not a valid reason to believe Jesus existed. Centuries ago consensus of scholarship contended that the earth was flat.

Michael Paulkovich
January 30, 2015


Click for Beyond the Crusades