Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gregor · 02-13-2004, 05:48 AM

I know it's embarrasing to post an argument, only to have it deflated, but don't get mad.

Leo, you implicitly said "Joe wouldn't have written about eclipses cause they happen all the time. Also, show me where these three other writers wrote about them."

Spin showed you where Joe AND those three other writers mentioned eclipses. He also showed that your premise was wrong about frequency.

Don't blame him for pointing out the errors in your argument.

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
With only a minority of eclipses being recorded in writing, and those mostly connected chronologically with some momentous event, the relative obscurity of the Crucifixion would almost guarantee that there be no mention of it in that connection.

I would expect that an eclipse occurring simultaneously with an earthquake would have been considered worthy of mention.

MortalWombat · 02-13-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I would expect that an eclipse occurring simultaneously with an earthquake would have been considered worthy of mention.

Especially an eclipse that occurs during a full moon.

Note: there can never be a solar eclipse during a full moon, and Passover (including the ones in the 1st century) always occurs during the full moon.

Dargo · 02-13-2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I would expect that an eclipse occurring simultaneously with an earthquake would have been considered worthy of mention.

A total eclipse that lasted for six hours at the wrong time in the lunar cycle occuring simulataneously with an earthquake followed by the veil of the temple being torn in two and people rising from the dead would certainly seem to have worthy of mention. It's too bad no one other than the Gospel writers considered this significant, and only Mathew mentioned the dead rising and the temple veil being torn in two. It's probably a conspiracy by Satan to hide the truth. Although given how succesful Satan's coverup has been, one could easily assume he is either a lot more powerful than god or the event never happened.

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 04:09 PM

On evidence that the Gospels were recording an actual event when they say the "sun was darkened", what do you guys think about the references by Thallus and Phlegon? They (supposedly) were historians writing around 50 CE, and are quoted by Julius Africanus, writing around 200 CE. Miller thinks it is evidence that supports the Gospels:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html

Quote:

Julius Africanus: On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth--manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. (XVIII.1)

Does anyone know what the validity of these references are? I.e. are they later interpolations? If not, don't they stand as (however slight) evidence for the Gospel accounts?

Toto · 02-13-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
On evidence that the Gospels were recording an actual event when they say the "sun was darkened", what do you guys think about the references by Thallus and Phlegon? They (supposedly) were historians writing around 50 CE, and are quoted by Julius Africanus, writing around 200 CE. Miller thinks it is evidence that supports the Gospels:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html

Does anyone know what the validity of these references are? I.e. are they later interpolations? If not, don't they stand as (however slight) evidence for the Gospel accounts?

Thallus: An Analysis

Quote:

Thallus is cited at least as a witness to the early date of the gospel story of the darkness, if not to the factuality of the darkness itself. But the facts surrounding Thallus are all too often incorrect, or asserted with unjustified boldness, . . .

Dargo · 02-13-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon

Does anyone know what the validity of these references are? I.e. are they later interpolations? If not, don't they stand as (however slight) evidence for the Gospel accounts?

The big problem is that the orginal writings of Thallus and Julius Africanus have not survived. What we have is Eusibius a 4th century Christian quoting Julius Africanus a 3rd century Christian who is supposedly quoting a 1st century pagan author Thallus. That's a lot of room for misinterpretations or distortions to occur. Imagine if a 10th century Muslim author quoted a 9th century Muslim author who supposedly quoted a 7th century Christian who witnessed Mohamed perform a miracle. Do you think any Christians would accept such flimsy evidence? We should hold their faith to the same degree of skepticism that they hold other faiths.

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Thallus: An Analysis

Thanks Toto. So it looks like there are question marks over Thallus. However, Phlegon looks pretty solid, according to Carrier:

Quote:

Africanus wrote in the early 3rd century. His contemporary, Origen, also cites Phlegon's mention of an earthquake and eclipse but does not repeat the exaggerations. Indeed, he expressly denies one of them in his commentary on Matthew, stating that "Phlegon, who mentioned an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius Ceasar, did not say that it happened during the full moon."

Not enough information there to link it to the events of the Gospels, but happening around the right time. Very interesting.

Amaleq13 · 02-14-2004, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
However, Phlegon looks pretty solid, according to Carrier...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "solid". Certainly not "reliable" if you are basing it on Carrier:

"...although we know for a fact that Phlegon wrote in the 140's AD, and was fond of fantastic stories, so it would not be surprising to find him borrowing this one from Christian literature."

Quote:

Not enough information there to link it to the events of the Gospels...

There does appear to be enough, however, to deny a link to the events described in the Gospels:

"...Phlegon merely recorded a great earthquake in Bithynia, which is on the coast of the Black Sea, more than 500 miles away from Jerusalem--so there is no way this quake would have been felt near the crucifixion--and a magnificent noontime eclipse, whose location is not clear. If the eclipse was also in Bithynia, as the Phlegon quote implies but does not entail, it also could not have been seen in Jerusalem, any more than partially, since the track of a total eclipse spans only 100 miles and runs from west to east (Jerusalem is due south).

In fact, the only coincidence with the gospel story is the year (although some modern scholars calculate the eclipse in question to have actually occurred in 29 AD) and time: it began at the sixth hour. Prigent suspects this last detail is a corruption by another scribe drawing from the gospel stories, although a noon eclipse is particularly startling and might get special mention (although the total eclipse would only occur at noon in one location--are we to suppose it was in Nicaea?). What is most important, however, is that Phlegon says nothing about the eclipse occuring during a full moon or lasting three hours (both physical impossibilities), yet these details are attributed to him in the lines added to Africanus. Clearly the quote has been altered over time."

GakuseiDon · 02-14-2004, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "solid". Certainly not "reliable" if you are basing it on Carrier:

"...although we know for a fact that Phlegon wrote in the 140's AD, and was fond of fantastic stories, so it would not be surprising to find him borrowing this one from Christian literature."

There does appear to be enough, however, to deny a link to the events described in the Gospels:

"...Phlegon merely recorded a great earthquake in Bithynia, which is on the coast of the Black Sea, more than 500 miles away from Jerusalem--so there is no way this quake would have been felt near the crucifixion--and a magnificent noontime eclipse, whose location is not clear. If the eclipse was also in Bithynia, as the Phlegon quote implies but does not entail, it also could not have been seen in Jerusalem, any more than partially, since the track of a total eclipse spans only 100 miles and runs from west to east (Jerusalem is due south).

Carrier's opinion is that it wouldn't be surprising if Phlegon borrowed the story from Christian literature - but, given that Phlegon places the earthquake and (possibly) the full-moon time solar eclipse 500 miles from Jerusalem there isn't much evidence for it.

The question is, if there was such a non-Gospel eclipse, why didn't Pliny or any other writer of the time make reference to it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2004, 05:48 AM	#21
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	I know it's embarrasing to post an argument, only to have it deflated, but don't get mad. Leo, you implicitly said "Joe wouldn't have written about eclipses cause they happen all the time. Also, show me where these three other writers wrote about them." Spin showed you where Joe AND those three other writers mentioned eclipses. He also showed that your premise was wrong about frequency. Don't blame him for pointing out the errors in your argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.