Freethought & Rationalism Archive

01-11-2003, 08:08 PM

Greetings all,

Checking up on Thallus and Phlegon, I still find many apologists who think these two are independent evidence of Jesus.

e.g. Bede's web site puts it this way :

Quote:

The two sources are Thallus (quoted by Julius Africanus in about 220 AD) who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean in about 50 AD. He mentions the darkness and calls it an eclipse of the sun. This is astronomically impossible as an eclipse cannot take place at a full moon. Another source, Phlegon from around 80 AD, also mentions the darkness, saying it took place at a full moon during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Origen and Africanus quote him.

Thallus

We do not have Thallus' writings, all we have is the comments of 3rd C. Julius Aficanus, as preserved in the 9th C. George Syncellus.

The supposed identification of Thallus depends entirely on a MIS-READING of Josephus, which even its author F.F.Bruce admits is "doubtful" (according to Wells). R.T.France also rejects this dating of Thallus.

Josephus mentions .. "allos Samareus genos" which has to be amended to read "Thallos" to support this identification.

All Josephus mentions is that he loaned money to Agrippa - even if it did say "Thallos", its not sure that this is the historian Thallus, and Thallus was a very common name.

So,
Julius Africanus supposedly wrote that
"Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse"
and criticises him for saying this, as it was a Full Moon.

Now,
there WAS an eclipse in 29CE, and Thallus may have refered to it.

But,
we do NOT know that Thallus said ANYTHING about Jesus - he may have merely refered to a known eclipse as an eclipse.

Both F.Jacoby and R.T.France note that this does NOT in any way prove Thallus mentioned Jesus at all - it could have been Julius who made the connection.

Thallus provides no evidence of anything about Jesus.

Phlegon

Similarly, Phlegon is recorded in Julius Africanus by Syncellus (and others, see below).

Julius supposedly wrote :

Quote:

Phlegon records that during the reign of Tiberius Caesar there was a complete solar eclipse at full moon from the sixth to the ninth hour; it is clear that this is the one.

Oddly, Julius does NOT criticise this mention of an eclipse at a Full Moon, even though it specifically says it was Full - thus R.M.Grant considers this to be an interpolation.

Now,
Eusebius also quotes Phlegon but he gives a DIFFERENT version that does NOT mention the Full Moon, or the 3 hours :

Quote:

Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

This verbatim version does not show any mention about Jesus at all - merely an eclipse that happened, and an earthquake.

This further argues that Julius' comment was interpolated by later Christians.

Thus,
Phlegon provides no evidence for Jesus at all, and neither does Thallus (thanks to G.A.Wells for much of the details).

Quentin David Jones

luvluv · 01-11-2003, 08:15 PM

Iasion:

What do you make of 1 Corinthians 11: 23-25?

Quote:

1 Corinthians 11:23
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

1 Corinthians 11:24
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Is this not a historical reference?

Vinnie · 01-11-2003, 08:27 PM

I'm pretty sure Carrier has an article on Thallus in the II library. Glen Miller also wrote an article on Thallus (which seems to favor the opposite conslusions of Carrier's) that can be found at the Thinktank. I recommend that those not familiar with the arguments here read both papers.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 01-11-2003, 11:43 PM

Here is Richard Carrier's piece:

Thallus: an Analysis

Here is a classic article on the subject:

Jacoby and M�ller on "Thallus"

Here is, well: :boohoo:

Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.

No additional articles have been added to http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html since 1996. It would be nice if Miller applied his skills to something more worthy than a fantastic third hand patristic rumor.

best,
Peter Kirby

01-12-2003, 12:14 AM

Greetings again,

Quote:

What do you make of 1 Corinthians 11: 23-25?
Is this not a historical reference?

I do not believe so.

If you claim it is - what is your argument?

Consider, Paul introduces the passage with :
For I received from the Lord...

The word "received" is "paralambano", which is also used in Galatians 1:11-12:

Quote:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not the product of men. For I did not receive (parelabon, from paralambano) it from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation of/about Jesus Christ.

Now, we know that Paul only saw Christ in a vision, he "received" his knowledge through revelation, and he explicitly tells us more than once that he received it "from no man" but through revelation.

i.e.
Paul is passing on his beliefs that he arrived at in spiritual visions.

There is not the slightest sense of "history" in his words -
There is no date, no year.
There is no setting, no place.
There is no background, no lead-up events.

Have you read Earl's take on this yet?
Earl's explanation

Here is some of his comments :

Quote:

First, Paul plainly says that he received this �from the Lord.� If he is speaking of a passed on tradition from other men, Paul�s words are on the surface illogical, even a falsehood. If other apostles gave him this information, presumably the ones who were present at such a scene, then he did not get it �from the Lord.� By clearly stressing that the Lord was the source of his information, Paul is denying any intermediate human step. Moreover, if such traditions about a Last Supper (Paul, alone in the New Testament, calls it �the Lord�s Supper�) were circulating through Christian circles, including Corinth, by means of oral transmission and general knowledge, and were in fact the source of Paul�s own familiarity with them, what kind of impression would Paul be giving his readers if he seemed to be claiming that he knew of these words through some personal revelation?
...
Thus, we must conclude that Paul is saying what the words seem to make him say: that this scene, which he has previously imparted to his readers, was the product of a private vision or inspiration coming from the heavenly Jesus. Once this is acknowledged, the way is open to regarding the scene Paul creates as a myth attached to the spiritual Christ, a myth designed to explain (as many myths do) the origins of a practice within the community, or at least, the origin of the significance that has now been attached to an older practice. To the meal of fellowship which is undoubtedly derived from the traditional Jewish thanksgiving meal, in a version (like the so-called �messianic banquet�) which has apocalyptic overtones (see 11:26), Paul has overlaid a sacramental significance based on a new interpretation of the meaning of the traditional bread and cup. This meaning is grounded in a mythical scene which may be Paul�s own invention, derived from a perceived personal revelation. The Gospel versions would probably ultimately be traced back to him. (We should also note that the establishment of the Eucharist is missing in other places in the rest of the early Christian record where we would expect to find it, such as the eucharistic prayers in the Didache, chapters 9 and 10, and in Hebrews 9:15-22 and even 7:1-3: see Supplementary Article No. [9: A Sacrifice in Heaven.)

Quentin

luvluv · 01-13-2003, 01:53 PM

Well, Iasion, I respect your and Doherty's right to your opinion. I won't waste anymore of your time though, as I honestly just don't think there is much to this topic, and I don't think either of us has a chance of convincing the other.

Again, I apologize for the earlier harsh tone of some of my comments. I will continue to peruse your site though (I think it's pretty darn thorough, by the way, even if I find it unconvincing). Thank you for spending some of your time helping out an unlearned fellow such as myself and I'll see you around the II.

01-13-2003, 05:05 PM

Greetings again,

Thanks for your comments luvluv

Polite disagreement is fine - see ya 'round.

Quentin

01-11-2003, 08:27 PM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Re: Thallus and Phlegon I'm pretty sure Carrier has an article on Thallus in the II library. Glen Miller also wrote an article on Thallus (which seems to favor the opposite conslusions of Carrier's) that can be found at the Thinktank. I recommend that those not familiar with the arguments here read both papers. Vinnie

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

01-11-2003, 11:43 PM	#4
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Here is Richard Carrier's piece: Thallus: an Analysis Here is a classic article on the subject: Jacoby and M�ller on "Thallus" Here is, well: :boohoo: Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d. No additional articles have been added to http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html since 1996. It would be nice if Miller applied his skills to something more worthy than a fantastic third hand patristic rumor. best, Peter Kirby

01-13-2003, 01:53 PM	#6
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Well, Iasion, I respect your and Doherty's right to your opinion. I won't waste anymore of your time though, as I honestly just don't think there is much to this topic, and I don't think either of us has a chance of convincing the other. Again, I apologize for the earlier harsh tone of some of my comments. I will continue to peruse your site though (I think it's pretty darn thorough, by the way, even if I find it unconvincing). Thank you for spending some of your time helping out an unlearned fellow such as myself and I'll see you around the II.

01-13-2003, 05:05 PM	#7
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Greetings again, Thanks for your comments luvluv Polite disagreement is fine - see ya 'round. Quentin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.