Thallus: A Response to Richard Carrier

Thallus: A Response to Richard Carrier

A little while ago I was involved in a discussion concerning the deity of Christ and the darkness surrounding the crucifixion as a sign of his deity. In this discussion—or debate as some might have called it—I came across an essay by the well-known skeptic Richard Carrier. After making a cursory reading through his essay, and finding many palpable problems, I was surprised to not find a response virtually anywhere on the internet, journals, books, etc. In fact, the only response I found was by an anonymous writer named Wildcat on J.P. Holdings Tektonics website. Incidentally, I was unimpressed by the lack of argument from the Christian perspective. What Carrier argues is that the crucifixion darkness never occurred, thus implying the gospels unreliability on this issue and thus questioning the deity (and even existence) of Jesus Christ.

Unlike Carrier, I am fully convinced “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (cf. 1 Cor 15:3b-4). Also, as it pertains to the subject, I am convinced that a supernatural darkness did in fact surround the crucifixion (cf. Matt 27:45; Luke 23:44). This was the result of Israel rejecting their Messiah and the first step of many to show Christ's ultimate vindication as being the messiah. What surprised me though is that contrary to what first skeptics taught early on (that the darkness was a solar eclipse), skeptics now teach that it never occurred. Below is my examination of Richard Carrier's Thallus: An Analysis[i]. This hopefully will become part of a larger compilation on the darkness as a whole, aside from strictly the character of Thallus and Carrier’s analysis of such. I hope this helps for anyone dealing with the issue.

To first begin my review of Carrier’s dissertation, I would like to begin by employing the full quote in its proper context. Although we unfortunately no longer have any of Thallus’ histories, some of his remarks and beliefs have been recorded in other early Christian writings. For example, Julius Africanus, the father of Christian chronography and the archetype for Eusebius’ History of the Church, contains a reference to Thallus concerning the eclipse surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus:

As to His works severally, and His cures effected upon body and soul, and the mysteries of His doctrine, and the resurrection from the dead, these have been most authoritatively set forth by His disciples and apostles before us. 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 Saviour fell 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 that 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.4 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. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer. And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks, as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time. (XVIII.1)

Richard Carrier argues a number of points in his essay. They are as follows:
1) Thallus probably wrote in the second century instead of the first
2) Josephus did not mention Thallus (Antiquities of the Jews 18.167)
3) Thallus may not have written about the darkness surrounding the crucifixion and probably did not mention Jesus. If Thallus did write about the crucifixion darkness he was so far removed from the event that he could not have been an eyewitness and thus was arguing against gospel tradition
4) The reference to Phlegon in the quote was originally a copyist’s note and was later taken to be reinserted into the text

Hence, Carrier’s conclusion is that apologists cannot count Thallus’ darkness as a credible and weighted argument for the deity, or even existence, of Jesus Christ.

This isn’t a sufficient conclusion though. The arguments presented by Carrier do not uphold the majority of scholarship, fail to answer important objections, and leave more questions than answers. It seems after reading Carrier’s thesis on Thallus that Carrier depends on too many weak conjectures to make some of his conclusions. Indeed, he makes some very broad presumptions, most of them non-sequential, in order to draw his conclusions on assigning a late date to the text.

So, let’s begin the exposition:

Who was Julius Africanus?

While little is known about Africanus outside of his writings, we do know some things about him from fragments of his writings and from what other ancient authors ascribe to him.

Julius Africanus was born in Libya, Africa. After probably serving under Septimius Severus—the first African emperor of Rome—in the battle against Osrhoenians in 195, Africanus became a Christian historian and traveler. His place of permanent residence was Emmasus (Luke 24:13).

Eusebius describes Africanus as “no ordinary historian” (History of the Church, I.6). In a five volume series, Africanus records the history of the world from Creation up to AD 221—a period which he deems as 5723 years. It’s unfortunate that out of this list of materials, no full manuscripts of his work are extant today. Thankfully though, several chronologists have recorded fragments of his work. The list includes George Syncellus (8th century), Cedrenus (11th century), and Eusebius (4th century). It is my hope that one day we will discovery a full set of Africanus’ histories tucked away somewhere in a library; nevertheless, what we have today is invaluable for Christian apologetics and even history in general.

Who is Thallus?

Much like Julius Africanus, little is known about who Thallus was. Most historians believe that he lived in the first century, writing his histories somewhere between A.D. 50-100.[ii] Also like Africanus, Thallus wrote a long history of which only fragments, quotes, and references are still extant.

We also know that Thallus falls within the ranks of well-respected, ancient historians. Before Africanus gives us our “eclipse” reference, he notes Thallus’ histories two other times (and these are just in the fragments) along with historians like Castor and Polybius:

And after 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the Bibliothecae of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. (XIII.2)

For these things are also recorded by the Athenian historians Hellanicus and Philochorus, who record Attic affairs; and by Castor and Thallus, who record Syrian affairs; and by Diodorus, who writes a universal history in his Bibliothecae; and by Alexander Polyhistr, and by some of our own time, yet more carefully...(XIII.3)

So one thing we cannot do is question his accurate documentation of historical events as he saw them.[iii] He is placed in the highest ranks of historians as a trustworthy source. As Glenn Miller states, “Whoever he was, our first impulse MUST BE to take Thallus seriously as a historian!”[iv]

Regarding the Africanus quote, Glenn Miller points out several facts that must be drawn into consideration. They are[v]:



The phrase 'this darkness' (touto to skotos) makes it clear that Thallus was attempting to account SPECIFICALLY for the darkness surrounding the crucifixion.
The phrase "let it carry the majority" probably indicates that a 'majority' of historians accounted for it thus, IMPLYING that MANY MORE such explanations were circulating! In other words, the strange darkness was REAL and a topic of scholarly discussion.
The phrase "portent only to the eye" indicates that some argued that it was strictly a mass visual hallucination (but still requiring scholarly explanation).
Another historian Phlegon recorded this event as well, specifying the very HOURS OF THE EVENT! (Phlegon was another freedman of the emperor, who wrote a 14-book history--cf. Constantine and Eusebius, Timothy D. Barnes, Harvard: 1981. 118). The wording of Julius' remark here suggests that Phlegon was merely reporting the phenomenon, without referring to Jesus.
The phrase "let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun..." indicates that what is under discussion is NOT the factuality of the event, but the EXPLANATION of it. In other words, Thallus is EXPLAINING the occurrence of the darkness--NOT 'documenting' it (contra G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, G. A. Wells, Pemberton:1986 (rev. ed.)13) as was Phlegon.
Harris (op.cit.) points out one of the implications of Julius' word choice here:
It is clear that Thallus was not merely documenting an eclipse of the sun that took place in the reign of Tiberius, as G.A. Wells alleges....If Africanus were simply questioning the accuracy of Thallus in claiming that an eclipse had occurred at a certain time, he would not have rejected Thallus' view by an expression of opinion--'(wrongly) it seems to me'. What he was rejecting was a naturalistic explanation of the darkness not an alleged occurrence of a solar eclipse. He proceeds to point out that Thallus' explanation was unsatisfactory because an eclipse of the sun is impossible at the time of the full moon.
[One might also notice that Thallus is singled out for Africanus' rebuttal; Phlegon, who seems merely to be chronicling the event, is accosted for INCOMPLETENESS--not inaccuracy, even though Thallus and Phlegon are BOTH said to be talking about an 'eclipse'. They are obviously arguing two different things, and NOT both merely documenting an eclipse (contra Wells, again.) In fact, Phlegon's witness is probably used--from literary structure--as a refutation of the preceding clause "a portent ONLY to the eyes". An appeal to a public record like that would make sense in the literary context.]
It is also important to note that Julius calls Thallus' work a historia and not some other general term for literary works. The import of this for our discussion is that it explains why (1) Julius' is taking Thallus seriously; and (2) why Thallus is dealing with the astronomical issue of the darkness. Since the earliest days of historiography--even as far back as Xanthos of Lydia (5th century BC), writers had attempted to 'anchor' their chronologies and explanations on potentially dateable events such as earthquakes, floods, etc. (cf. Historigraphy--Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Ernst Breisach, Univ.Chicago: 1994 (2nd ed).10). For example, Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War) correlates events to seasons of the year (e.g. 2.31.1) and astronomical events (e.g. 2.78.2). These types of events were kept in public archives (e.g. annales, acta populi in Rome, who probably patterned the idea after Greek practice--cf. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Charles W. Fornara, Univ. of Calif Press: 1983. 57, n12.) and were easily accessible to researchers. Indeed, these archives were so full of minutia, that 'high brow' literary types scorned the seeming trivialities of the record. So, the Roman censor Cato (b.184 BCE) could complain:

It is disagreeable to write what stands in the tablet at the house of the pontifex maximus--how often grain was costly, how often darkness or something else blocked the light of the moon or the sun. (The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Charles W. Fornara, Univ. of Calif Press: 1983. 24)
[The exactitude of the younger Phlegon's reference to 3 hours of darkness may have been based on such public records, and would have been a perfectly adequate evidentialist counter-argument to the "portent ONLY to the eyes" explanation of the darkness.]



Why wasn’t this recorded by other historians?

Carrier begins his essay by complaining that a solar eclipse would have been entirely impossible. This is agreed upon by all historians, scholars, astronomers, and so forth. This is not a new point however. This is in total corroboration with what Julius Africanus states in his analysis of Thallus’ explanation. However, Carrier goes on to assert: Such an impossible event would not fail to be recorded in the works of Seneca, Pliny, Josephus or other historians, yet it is not mentioned anywhere else outside of Christian rhetoric, so we can entirely dismiss the idea of this being a real event.

A couple of comments are in order. First of all, Carrier starts with an appeal to ignorance.[vi] He argues that because we don’t have any evidence outside of Christian rhetoric that this happened, than it most likely didn’t. However, we have two pagan histories that, at least upon first examination, reference the darkness. It is true that Christian apologists used these histories during the second and third centuries, but that does not deem them unworthy of historical accuracy. It seems that in Carrier’s mind if Christians use a historical text supported Christian claims, then it automatically becomes a source of “Christian rhetoric” and thus can no longer be trusted for accuracy. What Carrier doesn’t realize is that if another historical source mentioned the darkness, according to his guidelines, it would be deemed as Christian rhetoric. In fact, suppose we had a fourth history that mentioned the darkness. Despite the fact that I think Carrier would be forced to change his mind on the historicity of the darkness, his methodology is lacking. According to Carrier, if something is used by apologists to support a biblical claim like the darkness—as surely these hypothetical histories would be used—, it is not worthy of objective reliability. The conclusion of Carrier’s argument leads us to the point where no matter if we had twenty-five histories referring to the darkness, we would never end up with anything outside of Christian rhetoric.

Furthermore, contrary to what Carrier argues, are we to expect every ancient history to contain every astronomical event that occurred in Palestine? Not at all. Despite what critics may say, Pliny the Elder and Seneca the Younger did not provide exhaustive texts on the astronomy of the first century. For one, as J.P Holding of Tektonics[vii] points out, Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia) was one of the greatest skeptics and rationalists of the day. He found it quite unreasonable for an individual to attempt to show God’s imminent hand in nature and his relationship with mankind. For Pliny[viii], if God existed he would be completely transcendent—a deistic God.[ix]

Concerning the darkness, his Naturalis Historia was simply a first century encyclopedia ranging from discussions on geography to sculpture in marble. Nothing is to be expected in terms of an exhaustive history of every natural event.

On Seneca, Holding notes that his records were mostly “theoretical surveys of natural phenomena”—once again, not an exhaustive text and mostly dealing with how the natural law works, and ancient theories on cosmology—not controversial historical events.[x]

Moreover, we know that Seneca was an ardent Stoic philosopher of the highest degree. His major works were not concerning history or cosmology. They were tragedies and dialogues. In effect, his views on cosmology were unoriginal.

Seneca served as Nero’s advisor for more than eight years before retiring in A.D. 62 after which he wrote Naturales Questiones some time between A.D. 62 and 63, only two years before committing suicide. It’s possible that Seneca adapted some of Nero’s hatred for Christianity (or at least felt threat enough not to include it in his own writings due to Nero’s hatred for them). Thus, he would feel it unnecessary, moot, or too dangerous to discuss events surrounding the new Christian religion.

Now, according to medieval tradition, Seneca became a Christian after hearing the teachings of Paul. However, this is only legendary hearsay.[xi] It’s seems obvious that, from the absence of his comments on Christianity, Seneca felt that the subject was not worth discussing. In fact, this seems to be the same mindset attributed to his brother Gallio in Acts 18:12-17:

While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court. "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."
Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things." So he had them ejected from the court. Then they all turned on Sosthenes the synagogue ruler and beat him in front of the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatever.


Finally, it should be noted that Seneca’s absence of addressing the “darkness” around the crucifixion does not discount in anyway the existence of Jesus, the crucifixion, or the movement of early Christianity. It’s well known that the disciples were real historical figures (which presents a difficulty for those arguing that Jesus never existed), the Christian movement began very soon after the crucifixion, and that Paul was extremely influential in the spread of Christianity.[xii]

The same can be said of Josephus. Writing after Jesus lived, the martyrdom of several apostles (including Paul and Peter), the destruction of the temple prophesied in the scriptures, and without a doubt long after the Christian movement had become influential so as to be called a Jewish cult, Josephus barely mentioned the founder of the religion.

What can we learn from this? Do we conclude that the Christian movement only gained any real ground after Josephus’ death? Do we conclude that Paul, James, and John were not real historical figures? No. Once again, we can conclude that, much like Seneca and Pliny, Josephus was not concerned with the Christian movement very much at all. It wasn’t from a lack of existence or information. In my opinion we have only two options: (1) The event did not take place so Josephus did not write about it or (2) The event did take place but Josephus didn’t write about it because it was Christian in nature.[xiii]

So what we find is that Seneca, Pliny the Elder, and Josephus really had no reason to include the darkness at the crucifixion. In Pliny’s case, it was a moot point and not worth discussing. His histories were neither exhaustive nor did he like to accept supernatural phenomena. Pliny’s purpose in writing was not to record historical astronomical events but provide a resource for understanding the natural world. In Seneca’s case, his purpose in writing Naturales Questiones was to discuss theories on natural phenomena. Seneca was neither an expert natural scientist nor a historian but a writer of many different genres. For Josephus, while there are indeed two references to Jesus and one to John the Baptist, it appears that Josephus believed it unnecessary to make an account of the darkness around the crucifixion.

When did Thallus write?

In the Armenian translation of Eusebius’ mention of Thallus, there is a date that indicates that Thallus wrote from the Trojan War to 167th Olympiad (112-109 BC). However, it’s obvious that the above quote from Africanus on Thallus is referencing an event that occurred in A.D. 29. As Carrier notes, there are two possibilities for this problem: (1) either the Armenian text (the text of Africanus by Eusebius in his Church History) was referring to a different work or 2) The date has been corrupted. Carrier is right in stating that, virtually every scholar has opted for the latter option. The motive, he argues, is “to conjecture the original date.” Quite clearly, Carrier opts for the earlier option. We should note again that Carrier humbly recognizes that his theory goes against majority scholarship. The view of the majority scholarship is that there are several problems with dates and numerals in Eusebius’ works due to copyists.[xiv] He then asserts, without providing any substantial arguments to support his claim, that “judging by paleography” the Armenian text was referring to a different work and thus, we should keep the 167th Olympiad date. It’s apparent that Carrier’s motives for this underlie his conclusion. He wrongly blames Eusebius scholars a type of deceitfulness—conjecturing the date to the time of Christ because of a previous bias towards objective research . Unfortunately for Carrier, if he is to accuse Eusebius scholars of a prior commitment to faith that supercedes objective research, his accusation in fact looks him right back in the face. Anyone who has read Carrier’s work is aware that he proclaims to be an ardent atheist and an advocate of the controversial minority stance that Jesus Christ may have never even existed. Is it possible then that his conclusion on Christianity precedes his work on Thallus? Perhaps not, and I am not truly willing to argue that of him. The point stands though that Carrier could just as well have a prior commitment to atheism.

Now, Carrier goes on to argue that “most likely Thallus wrote in the 2nd century”. His reasoning is the fact that the first time Thallus is mentioned is in A.D. 180 by Theophilus. Therefore, Thallus theoretically could have written any time up to the middle of the second century. While this could be the case, this is unlikely as can be seen from several reasons below:

Now, that said, there are several factors that should be looked into when examining the conclusion of Eusebius scholars and historians in concluding that the date has been wrongly translated. Carrier mentions none of these:

(1) Mistakes in numerals, especially during the first century, were common. The earliest Armenian text of Eusebius is from the 12th century and claims that Thallus’ Historie was finished in the 167th Olympiad. Eusebius would have recognized a problem with the conflicting dates of the 167th Olympiad and the A.D. 29 reference. Since ancient numbers have often been corrupted or mistranslated by copyists, our reasonable assumption in dealing with this contradiction is that the number was mistranslated and was actually referring to either the 207th or the 217th Olympiad originally. These are the only two prominent scholarly proposals to date. The former is the date more under agreement from scholars. Scholar Carolous Müller states, “For my part, I think sigma-zeta became rho-xi-zeta, on the idea that xi-zeta arose from a duplication of the same letter. So the chronicle would have covered the period up to the 207th Olympiad (49 A.D.).”[xv] It was easy when translating texts for a number to get corrupted either on accident or on purpose. Even Jerome, when translating Eusebius’ text into Latin mistranslated several numbers. The mistranslation of numbers was quite easy. Petermann and Karst, Eusebius translators and scholars, find that the mistranslation from 167th Olympiad to the 217th Olympiad is all but one character in Armenian—not an impossible task at all and a possiblity which certaintly lines up with the rest of the data. The biggest problem in determining the original number is not knowing under which language, Greek or Armenian, the number was mistranslated. What we can know though is that the original numbe was not 167. It was either 207 or 217.
(2) Eusebius was a brilliant scholar who presumably was not afraid to question early Christian or Jewish writings as reliable. He even questioned or down right rejected the traditional authorship of 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation. To argue that Eusebius knew that Thallus finished writing with the 167th Olympiad and still argued for Thallus’ account of the darkness of the crucifixion is of great disrespect to his scholarship.
(3) As Glen Miller notes, the phrase “this darkness” indicates that Africanus knew exactly which darkness Thallus was referring to. In fact, he supports this by noting that this is the same darkness referred to by Phlegon.
(4) Very few documents from the first three centuries have survived. In fact, as I already stated, only fragments and quotes of Thallus’ histories survive today. Thus, the very fact that so little of his writings and those quoting his writings still survive (8 in all), is not a firm basis for assuming that he wrote so late.
(5) Carrier argues that Thallus was most likely referring to the gospel tradition that had been circulating in second century Palestine and not as an eyewitness of the event. This is probably false because the darkness at the crucifixion doesn’t appear—even in modern historiography—to have been a major discussion point. The focus of that day was not the darkness but the death of the Son of God. Furthermore, it’s evident that Thallus is attempting to provide an explanation for the event as it actually happened rather than arguing that it is only Christian legend. It would otherwise seem that Thallus, a pagan, would have argued that the eclipse was merely Christian myth much like the resurrection if he would have even argued it at all. In other words, Thallus would not have felt a need to provide an explanation for the darkness if he was not convinced that it had happened. Lastly, one of Carrier’s arguments is that Thallus may have not even mentioned Jesus. The problem is that this is inconsistent with his claim that he was relying on the gospel tradition of the darkness already circulating in Palestine. In other words, Carrier argues that Thallus was not referencing a historical darkness but the one referred to in the gospel narratives and yet he probably did not mention Jesus Christ or the crucifixion. This is inconsistent. In fact, reason tells us that if the rumor of the darkness in Palestine was so extensive and popular that Thallus felt he needed to refer and provide a naturalistic explanation of it, he would have mentioned Jesus Christ. The darkness and the crucifixion were bonded events. It’s like writing about the attacks on 9/11 and not mentioning Muslim terrorists.
(6) It is mere dogmatism with which Carrier argues that it is “most likely” that Thallus wrote in the second century. From all that has survived from ancient Palestine, the fact that we have a source quoting him from A.D. 180 is remarkable. In addition, Carrier argues that Thallus probably wrote in the second century but stopped his histories at A.D. 52 (much like Eusebius did with one of his chronicles). While this is a good point, I think this is where Ockham’s Razor[xvi] needs to be employed. In this case, when comparing the arguments for and against Thallus being an eyewitness to the event, the historian may become somewhat indifferent. However, because most ancient histories ended within the generation (even within a few years) of the author’s lifetime, and with the knowledge of how few first and second century manuscripts we currently have, it seems the most reasonable assumption that Thallus ended his history within the generation of which he wrote and with the end of the 207th or 217th Olympiad.



Phlegon?

In the second part of Carrier’s analysis I do not find much of a problem. Carrier’s argument, as in relation to Thallus, was that Julius Africanus did not write about Phlegon as a backing for Thallus’ reference. Instead, the argument supposes that the reference to Phlegon was simply a side note by a copyist and was later inserted into the text. This, I do not think, provides a problem for the darkness. Here’s why:

Aside from what Julius Africanus may have or may not have wrote regarding Thallus, a copyist still was familiar with Phlegon’s reference to the darkness. Phlegon wrote in A.D 160 and is quoted often by various early apologists as support for the darkness and mention of Jesus Christ:

In the fourth year, however, of Olympiad 202[xvii], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea. These things [are according to] the aforementioned man [Jesus]. Jerome, Chronicle

Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Christ a knowledge of future events, though falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus, but also testified that the result corresponded to his predictions. From Origen, Against Celsus 2.14

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose kingship Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles. From Origen, Against Celsus 2.33

So, what we have that the very least is an insert into the Africanus text which attests to the very fact that

(1) Phlegon did write of this darkness as a real historical event (this is attested to by his very descriptions of the event and the geographical locations)
(2) His history was well known at this time among Christians
(3) He mentioned Jesus Christ, apparently as a prophet of the darkness and the earthquakes

Furthermore, I think we need to note a further corroboration to the darkness. Again going to Tertullian, a Roman citizen, was born in A.D.155. His conversion took place about 197 A.D. He was extremely familiar with Roman law and seems often to portray a significant knowledge of Roman records and documents. In fact, regarding the crucifixion darkness, Tertullian writes: And yet when He was crucified He spontaneously yielded up His Spirit with a word, and anticipated the duty of the executioner. At the same moment, while the sun was pointing to midday, the daylight was withdrawn. Those who were ignorant that this also was predicted of Christ thought that it was merely an eclipse [but no reason being found for it, they then denied the fact]; and yet you have this event that befell the world registered in your archives First Apology

What is interesting here is that Tertullian, writing to the Roman governors, gives us two supporting arguments, using his own political knowledge, for the crucifixion darkness:

1) Tertullian is confidant and testing that the darkness of the crucifixion is registered in the Roman archives. He even taunts the Roman governors to look at the archives for themselves.
2) He does not use Thallus or Phlegon at all even though both of them wrote before him.


In analysis of Richard Carrier’s article I found a good bit of work on my hands—perhaps more to come. However, I am confident that in his analysis, he fails to cover the more evident objections to his hypothesis and, in turn, fails to analyze the proper arguments for Thallus’ reference to the “darkness”.

Are we to accept Carrier’s argument? I think not. I believe the scholarly consensus stands that there was darkness at the crucifixion. Whether one believes it was supernatural or not is highly dependent on one’s worldview. The problem with Carrier’s worldview is that a supernatural darkness could not have occurred, thus forcing him to look for answers elsewhere. I believe I have demonstrated that those evidences present at the very least reasonable agnosticism towards the approach at the crucifixion darkness. What does this mean for our conclusions on the deity of Christ? Simply that we need to look elsewhere if we are still unsure.


However, I believe I have presented the following: Thallus was probably an eyewitness, but, at the very least we cannot argue that he “most likely wrote in the second century”. Phlegon apparently relied on well-known information aside from the gospel tradition and even argued that Jesus Christ predicted the events. Tertullian knew of official Roman documents that supported this event, left it open for cross examination, and didn’t site Phlegon or Thallus. The best answer, as it seems to me, is that the darkness did occur, not under the phenomena of an eclipse but supernaturally. Could Carrier be right in arguing that the darkness never happened? Yes. Is it plausible that Carrier is right? I don’t think so.




[i] The full article can be read at “http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html”
You can also access Richard Carrier’s translation and evaluation of Jacoby and Müller’s arguments on Thallus at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jacoby.html
[ii] Murray Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," Gospel Perspectives: the Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels vol. 5, 344
[iii] Now this is not saying that we cannot question “how” he interpreted the event. In laws of logic there are certain ideas of perception known as “seeing as” and “seeing that”. “Seeing as” simply attempts to provide an answer to what we think something is when it might in fact really be something else (like seeing a plane mistakenly as a bird). “Seeing that” is something which provides the absolute answer for what is being seen (seeing a plane that is actually a plane). We can question if Thallus was “seeing as” or “seeing that”. In fact, that is exactly what Julius Africanus is critiquing. Africanus argues that Thallus was mistakenly seeing the darkness as an eclipse rather than seeing that it was, in reality, a supernatural phenomenon.
[iv] http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html
[v] Ibid.
[vi] In fact, Carrier would also be begging the question. The question being begged here is “Do historians outside of Christian rhetoric mention the eclipse?” First, Carrier places Thallus and Phlegon in a place of “Christian rhetoric” simply because they are used by Christian apologists. Secondly, if we can simply take these histories as merely “used by apologists” rather than “Christian rhetoric” then we have two sources outside of Christian rhetoric. I think, if we are to apply the term “Christian rhetoric” to ancient histories, the gospels and epistles written from the first century onward would be more appropriate to the term. The histories of Thallus and Phlegon are, in effect, outside of Christian rhetoric to support claims in Christian rhetoric.
[vii] I must say that I am not big a big fan of J.P Holding’s work. However, as things currently are, Tektonics appears to be one of the best sources on the internet to find some of the more minor Christian apologies. I do agree with Holding on this point though. There is no reason to assume that every first century history or commentary would record such an event—especially when it is attributed to first century Christianity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
[viii] It’s interesting to note though that Pliny the Younger sent a letter to Emperor Trajan in A.D. 112 on how to persecute Christians.
[ix] http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/thallus.html
[x] Ibid
[xi] There are letters written traditionally between Paul and Seneca. The general consensus around these letters from both conservative and non-conservative scholars is that they are pseudo-epistles written centuries later. There is no indication that Seneca showed any interest in Paul’s ministry. Just like his brother, Seneca most likely “showed no concern whatsoever.”
[xii] In fact, no ancient secular historian mentions Paul at all. Are we then to suppose that Paul was not a historical figure or that the events described by him in his epistles did not occur? Not at all. We can conclude that historians of the day, mostly skeptical pagans, simply did not concern themselves with Christianity too much.
[xiii] There is a third option here and that is that Josephus did not know about the eclipse. Although this is less likely, it would have been before his time (circa A.D. 37-100) and what interaction he may have had with Christians or Christian message may have not contained any mention to a darkness.
[xiv] See, Mosshammer, Alden. 1979. The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press; Petermann and Karst, translators of the Armenian translation, Chronicles: Eusebius
[xv] Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Fragments of the Greek Historians, 1840), Müller.
[xvi] Ockham’s Razor states that if there is a confronting situation, the simplest answer is the one that should be taken.
[xvii] This is probably either a miscalculation or a misunderstanding on Phlegon’s part (the 202nd Olympiad occurred in A.D. 32/33) but nonetheless, attests to the crucifixion darkness, earthquake, and Jesus Christ’s existence in a relative timescale.