How do atheists explain the fact that Thallus recorded the solar eclipse mentioned in Matthew?>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 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 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. 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.God is real, and the resurrection happened.
I'll answer your question if you directly quote the relevant passage from Thallus.
>>18488289How do we get from"Solar eclipses happened in the past" to "some dude who is also God resurrected from the dead."
>>18488290The greentexted portion is the relevant passage by Thallus.>>18488293A solar eclipse couldn't have happened. It was clearly a miracle.
>>18488305>The greentexted portion is the relevant passage by ThallusThat is not a passage by Thallus, it's someone else talking about Thallus. It literally talks about Thallus in the third person.So I'll ask you once again to directly quote the relevant passage from Thallus.
>>18488305>This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, callsWhy is he talking about himself in the third person?
>>18488289How do you explain the fact that the emperor of Japan conjured two typhoons to destroy the Mongol armada? How do you explain the fact that a Turkish politician had a heart attack on stage right after calling for Israel's destruction? How do you explain the fact that Gilgamesh's ancient flood is recorded? How do you explain the fact that Rome collapsed once it stopped honoring Jupiter?
>>18488317We have no primary source, but we do have a secondary source that Thallus tried explaining the darkness.
>>18488329>We have no primary source Weird how God with his all important message didn't make sure we had a robust historical documentation of the events of the resurrection. Like he wasn't taking it seriously.
>>18488329So you claim God must be real because some random guy said a guy called Thallus said something? Do we even know what precise date Thallus is supposed to have given for the eclipse?Imma be honest with you, if this is he level of rigor I'd apply to everything, I'd believe in shit like palmistry lol.
>>18488344Bro…
>>18488345Well, people think Thallus wrote somewhere between 50-100 AD.
>>18488355That doesn't answer my question.
>>18488293They only care about reality insofar as it proves their book right.
>>18488358>>18488358>In his Chronicle of Theophanes, 9th-century Christian chronicler George Syncellus cites the Chronographiai of Sextus Julius Africanus as writing in reference to the darkness mentioned in the synoptic gospels as occurring at the death of Jesushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian)#Africanus_on_Thallus
>>18488358>>18488358Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament : An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. pp. 20–21. ISBN 0802843689. "This fragment of Thallos used by Julius Africanus comes in a section in which Julius deals with the portents during the crucifixion of Jesus. Julius argues that Thallos was "wrong" (αλογως) to argue that this was only a solar eclipse, because at full moon a solar eclipse is impossible, and the Passover always falls at full moon. Julius counters that the eclipse was miraculous, "a darkness induced by God." Thallos could have mentioned the eclipse with no reference to Jesus. But it is more likely that Julius, who had access to the context of this quotation in Thallos and who (to judge from other fragments) was generally a careful user of his sources, was correct in reading it as a hostile reference to Jesus' death."
>>18488350>robust
>>18488374>>18488375So you're just speculating that Thallus was taking about a magical Jesus eclipse, and you're getting this from what, fourth hand sources? I truly don't understand how your mind works. Do you not realize that this is not the least convincing to anyone who doesn't already buy into your religion?
>>18488380I'm not speculating anything, academics are speculating. See: Van Voorst.
>>18488376Define robust
>>18488387Distinction without a difference. You're just adding another questionable link into the chain - all that I had to believe before now also entirely hangs on me having to utterly trust with all my heart the speculation of this Van Voorst. You just keep adding more and more speculative things that I have to believe before I even begin to consider this argument.
>>18488395I literally quoted him here: >>18488375
>>18488399When did I say or imply that you didn't quote Van Voorst?
>>18488400Why do you think I'm adding more speculative links here? Voorst is pretty clear in what he considers to be true.
>>18488380They do this shit all the time. Remember that they made up a prophecy about the Oracle of Delphi admitting defeat to Christianity even though the Oracle still continued to function long after this alleged prophecy was said and our oldest accounts of it come from Christian writers centuries later. There’s a reason most scholars consider it a literary invention by Christians.
>>18488401Yes, he's clear on what his speculations are. Before I even begin to consider that Thallus mentioned a specific date of the eclipse, I need to trust that Van Voorst's speculations are correct. It's layers upon layers of shit that I need to take for granted before we even move to the main argument.For all I know, it could be that Thallus mentioned "an" eclipse without giving a very specific date, later Christians claimed that it's the Jesus eclipse from the gospels, Julius tried to justify that by saying that it had to have been supernatural anyway and then this whole thing somehow got through a game of telephone to Theophanes almost a millennium after Thallus put a quill to papyrus.
>>18488388Multiple corroborating sources.
>>18488289Religious fanatics lie about what others said all the time. This isn't anything new.
>>18488412Alright, fine, I admit it. Voorst himself does indicate he's not too sure either, nor is he claiming that Thallus must have recorded said eclipse. Thallus wasn't an eyewitness, and he might have either reported a random eclipse or criticized the Christian claim of a darkness happening. However, we can't rule out that it happened.
>>18488424Fair enough, but that's worth very little if you want to convince an unbeliever.
>>18488429Love never asked me to sell it to others.
>>18488290>>18488293>>18488325>>18488380Tertullian tells us that this was also recorded in the Roman archives:>In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his noon blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of this portent still in your archives.That can be read here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxi.html
>>18488376It's extremely robust, most people can't even read it, let alone study it. But it's the realest thing to ever really real.
>>18488563Why couldn't it have been a natural eclipse
>>18488575But there were no eclipses at this time. Look at all the total eclipses in the world from 30-40 AD here: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearch.php. Nothing even near the entire Roman Empire. So it is impossible for this darkness to have been an eclipse.
>>18488577A total solar eclipse happened in November 29AD, which was seen in an area that roughly covered modern-day Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria. All three were Roman provinces, and heavily Greek in culture. Phlegon of Thralles, who's quoted mentioning a solar eclipse happening in the 4th year of Olympiad (33AD) was writing roughly a hundred years after the fact, so it's not surprising if he got things wrong. It would still be the same olympiad, but just an entirely different year.https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=00291124Phlegon:>"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the sixth hour the day was changed into night, and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicæa."We have no idea what records Tertullian was speaking about, because we still have no idea, which year Jesus died. Tertullian might have just found few accounts akin to Thrallus, and concluded that it had to mean the miracles found in Matthew.
>>18488604>Phlegon of Thralles, who's quoted mentioning a solar eclipse happening in the 4th year of Olympiad (33AD) was writing roughly a hundred years after the fact, so it's not surprising if he got things wrong.Massive COPE. It was a miracle and you can't accept that fact.
>>18488577It could've just been clouds
>>18488617>a record of a solar eclipse happening during 202nd Olympiad exists, mentioned in same passing to an Earthquake in Bithynia>NASA confirms that a total solar eclipse did indeed happen in 29AD aka the 202nd Olympiad, in Bithynia no lessSo what's the more likely thing here? Either Phlegos, writing about a hundred years later, simply mixed up the years due to human error or misinformation, or an actual miracle happened. I know Christians will always choose the second option, but I think the most reasonable explanation is simply that Phlegon got the years wrong.
>>18488624Or very simply just a literary device, which most scholars subscribe to these days.
>>18488656Sorry, but I think you're coping due to cognitive dissonance. Phlegos obviously would have had an access to the records, the same ones church fathers did, and if he'd been wrong, they would have immediately corrected him about it.
>>18488723Your argument essentially proves nothing, because Phlegon is the only one we know with a date. Thallus doesn't give us any dates, neither does Tertillius. Tertillius doesn't even mention Thallus or Phlegon, and only Eusebius gives us something of a date - which is Phlegon's. In other words, yes, it's actually completely possible that Phlegon got the date wrong, because the church fathers are relying on him as the source. Tertillius doesn't even matter here, because he never mentions Phlegon (or who knows, maybe his mystery source was Phlegon).
>>18488711Although I haven't found a scholar saying this yet, I'm convinced that it's a relatively well-disguised reference to Isaiah 60:1-4, similar to how other parts of the crucifixion narrative are references to Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 (or prophecy fulfillments, if you like). Both the Isaiah passage and Mark refer to darkness covering the earth using the same word for earth in the Septuagint, though in Mark it's often translated as "land" instead to imply a smaller area. The thing that makes the connection hard to see is that Isaiah is talking about the glory of the Lord being raised up, and crucifixion might not sound especially glorious, but Mark gives us that connection for free in Mark 10:35-40, where James and John ask to sit at Jesus' right and left in his "glory," and Jesus' response darkly implies that he takes it to mean his crucifixion via the metaphor of a cup that he will drink and a baptism he will be baptized with, with the cup metaphor reappearing in the Garden of Gethsemane and the baptism metaphor being known from Paul in Romans 6:4.
>>18488855An interesting fact related to the James and John passage is that, while Jesus definitely seems to imply that James and John will both be martyred, Christian tradition has it that John is the only disciple who wasn't martyred. Not sure how that happened.
