That some references to Jesus could well have been lost through the non-survival of the great bulk of classical writings is, then, highly likely. However, even if the survival rate of texts had been higher, it may be doubted, given the well-known biases of Greek and Roman writers, whether the material on Jesus would have been vastly greater. It is an incontrovertible fact that, in general, Greek authors of the early imperial period were more interested in celebrating their glorious past than in dwelling upon their inglorious present, and the main focus of most Roman prose-writers of the early imperial period tended to be on Rome itself, its elite citizens and their political concerns, the most important of which was their relationship with the emperor. Their subjects in the provinces, by contrast, were of little interest to them and so receive relatively little attention in their works. Although authors of Roman annalistic histories, on account of the conventions of that genre, were obliged to offer some coverage of events external to Rome itself (generally the frontier wars and provincial revolts in which the elite played a prominent part), little attention is paid in that coverage, on an individual level at least, to Rome’s opponents — whether foreign enemies or internal rebels. The number of provincials, for instance, singled out for mention by name in Roman rebellion narratives is incredibly small. The few provincial subjects who are so identified almost invariably enjoy high social status. A good example is Boudicca, the leader of the British uprising against the Romans during the reign of Nero in 60/61 CE. The only rebel actually to be named in narratives of that uprising, she was, as their authors are seen to stress, of royal status. Tellingly, the only history of a Roman province that has come down to us was written by a Provincial. I am, of course, referring to Josephus, the first half of whose life was spent in a province (Judaea) as a subject of Rome, not as one of her citizens.

Given such a lack of interest by elite Roman writers in their provincial subjects, it should come as no surprise to the latter’s religious practices likewise tend to be regarded with indifference. Even when the more easily transferable provincial cults manage to become established in Rome itself as the result of immigration, Roman writers show little interest in them. Not only do they have very little to say about these so-called alien, superstitions (externae superstitiones), but the few comments that they do venture to make often reveal a quite astonishing level of ignorance. Take the Jewish cult, for instance. Although there had been a substantial and conspicuous Jewish presence in Rome from at least the early 50s BCE, Roman writers throughout the early imperial period remain remarkably ill-informed about them and their cult. To quote Gruen on this point: ‘In fact, they (sc. Jews) had too little importance even for Roman intellectuals to undertake any serious research or enquiry about them. The latter seem satisfied with superficial appearances and impressions; hence they retailed shallow, half-baked, and misinformed opinions. Why bother to do more?’ And unlike early Greek writers about the Jews who display quite a positive interest in the founder of their distinctive socio-religious system, the lawgiver Moses, Roman writers display very little interest in him at all: for Pliny the Elder, uncle and adoptive father of Pliny the Younger, he was simply a magician.

With Roman writers displaying these kinds of attitudes, the chances of a man of artisanal status, as Jesus allegedly was, receiving much notice from them would appear to be exceedingly slim. Had he raised a rebellion against Rome, conceivably he might have gained the odd notice from Roman historians, notwithstanding his lowly social status. That is how ‘a certain Simon’ (Simo quidam) managed to secure a mention from Tacitus in his brief overview of Jewish history at Histories 5.9-10. Although only a slave, Simon had exploited the power vacuum in Judaea following the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE to sate a coup serious enough to require intervention by troops loyal to Rome and the Herodian dynasty. Jesus, however, clearly had done nothing comparable. According to Tacitus, Judaea was at peace during Tiberius’s reign, the time when Jesus was executed. No reason, then, to mention him at alien an historical survey aimed at an elite, metropolitan Roman readership.

Given this situation, with Greek writers fixated on the classical past and Roman writers concerned mainly with warfare and metropolitan politics, the surprising thing about Jesus is not how little he is mentioned by classical authors but how much. I know of no other Roman subject of comparable social status who figures as much as he does in their writings.