Talk:Thallus (historian)

Confirms Historicity of Jesus?

I removed the line "On the other hand, if the fragment is taken at face value, it provides interesting confirmation of the existence of Jesus and the historicity of his crucifixion from a non-Christian first-century historian" from the Early Christian Use section, simply because it's wrong. It does not do this in any way, and this line does not contribute to the article as a whole. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, but surely it does (or at least seems to). After all, why else do people take any interest in Thallus? Roger Pearse 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

″Why else?″ is not an argument. It can definitely be not for that reason without positing a known reason why. As it happens, his contribution to Jesus' historicity is now deprecated, and was never his main claim to fame until modern times when that historicity became an issue. Thallus never met Jesus, so that's a bit of a problem in a time before mass media. Thallus was mostly known since ancient times for explaining the darkness during the Crucifixion as an eclipse. However, the Crucifixion took place at Passover, and Passover timing doesn't allow for an eclipse. Centrepull (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious passage moved here

I moved "No other author who mentions Thallus before Syncellus makes any mention of Thallus' supposed reference to the darkness" here, as there are a number of problems with it. It implies that Syncellus created this (POV); it implies that lots of people before Syncellus discuss this passage (untrue); and it suggests that Julius Africanus didn't actually say what Syncellus quotes him as saying (POV). Finally I really don't believe that whoever wrote this had any idea of what earlier authors say anyway; or that absence of mention tells us nothing. So this sentence tells us nothing useful, and is best removed. Roger Pearse 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone of an atheist tendency removed the link to Tectonics discussing the Carrier article, objecting to it as 'biased'; but the Carrier article is equally a piece of polemic hosted on a hate-site! I consider that Carrier's article is worth holding onto for the raw data, if not the rather strange inferences from them. But the Tectonics analysis is worth retaining to point out the flaws in Carrier. Together the two articles form a more balanced whole, and I have therefore replaced the link. Roger Pearse 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The first external link is to a translation of Jacoby's and Müller's editions of Thallus, which is published on the infidels.org site. The tektonics.org article Thallus by Two is actually responding to a different infidels.org article (Thallus: an Analysis), which wasn't linked from the Wikipedia page. I don't favour linking to either of the polemical articles, but I can't see the problem with a link to the Jacoby-Müller translation (most of it comes from major scholarly works, and the original "translator's notes" don't seem to me to contain any atheist polemic).

Do you mind if I ask what led to your comment about my "atheist tendency"? I don't remember having discussed my religious views on Wikipedia, and if my edits suggest to you that I'm an atheist then I probably need to work on my neutral point of view. EALacey (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Would this be acceptable? "The works are are important because they help confirm the historicity of Jesus." - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the works themselves (Thallos's works) can neither confirm or deny the historicity given that we do not know what they actually said.

"Thallos details the Crucifixion of Jesus but explains that the darkness that fell over the land at the time of Jesus' death was not a supernatural miracle, but an merely an eclipse"

This description of Thallos' work is simply distorted. What we do know is that it is Julius who mentions the Crucifixion and explains that the event was not an eclipse. Again we do not know what Thallos actually wrote in the subject, or if he indeed speaks directly of the Crucifixion or of Jesus.

This is precisely why I included the quote from Julius' work, so the reader can actually read the source. The above statement is an interpolation which can be done away completely with the use of the original quote from History of the World. Can we please include some form of it?Orarchy (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You won me over. Go ahead. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, my apologies if I am typing this in the wrong place. I would propose a more neutral wording, something along the lines of ""The works are considered important by Christian scholars because they believe them to help confirm the historicity of Jesus."" The way it is worded now is much too certain and biased given the explanations already provided here in this talk page... Dixonge (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt about what Thallus wrote (Africanus doesn't quote Thallus) and there is doubt about when Thallus wrote his history. Van Voorst says the date is somewhat uncertain and Thallus may be the earliest to write about the crufixion. The article glosses over these doubts. E4mmacro (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Carrier quote

There is a quote in the lead of this article to a website run by blogger Richard Carrier - [1]. Blogs and non academic websites are not reliable sources for wikipedia - see WP:USERG "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated". However the article on the blog does link to a peer reviewed academic journal with an article by Carrier on the subject, so I am replacing the current quote from the blog with a quote from his article in the journal.Smeat75 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Majority of Scholars believe darkness is literary creation?

The page says that the majority of scholars think that the darkness over the land in the work of the Gospels is a literary creation. That's a pretty grand claim with pretty non-existent evidence, all I can see is a single source to a single academic who holds that view. Is there any evidence that the view that the darkness is a literary creation is a lot more prevalent than being held by a single person, let alone a majority view? I am in very, very high doubt that this is a 'majority' view. Unless someone can show its a majority view, or at least a lot more prevalent, then the Wikipedia page should be quickly changed from saying "most" to "some". Korvex (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Better now? Doug Weller talk 15:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Richard Carrier

@Ramos1990: Hi. Slightly confused as to your last edits. You say that Dr. Richard Carrier, B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history), is not a subject matter expert. You seem to be saying this because you think that the relevant field (per WP:SPS) is not Ancient History but Thallus. Given the level of scholarly study Thallus has attracted (ie not much) it seems unreasonable to view the study of him as a field in its own right. I would further note that Dr. Carrier has a peer-reviewed article on Thallus so you would need to set both a specific field and a high bar to stop him from being a subject matter expert.

I would further note that the Infidels article was used only as a citation to the claim that Thallus is sometimes cited for details on Syrian and Assyrian history, a claim you have not removed. Additionally I dispute that infidels is a self published source but I won't get in to that. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I kind of responded in the section below, but to re-iterate, Carrier has no solid expertise on Thallus as a historian or as a source. The peer reviewed paper you cited is about relation to Jesus and the Gospels, not Thallus. Infidels is a self-publishing think tank, it is not peer reviewed, it is not an academic journal, and it is clearly not a source used by academics. Carrier self published much of his research on Christianity there.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you for replying but I am afraid you seem to have missed my main point. SPS is specific that the Subject Matter Expert clause is for the relevant field. It seems to me that Thallus is not a field of study in and of himself and that the relevant field is ancient history. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not consider Thallus a field of study. The problem is that Carrier has very little tracking record in peer reviewed works relating to ancient Roman history let alone Thallus. He could not even get a peer reviewed academic publisher for his own history PhD dissertation (Carrier, Richard (2016). Science Education in the Early Roman Empire. Pitchstone Publishing.). He also has a strong propensity to self-publish (he loves his blog) than actually get relevant peer reviewed contributions to his own field. Credentials are not enough to make him a reliable source. He also has never held an academic position at any institution of higher learning.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you wish to remove the text I was attempting to cite him for then? ~ El D. (talk to me) 08:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It probably is best to remove the uncited claim. It is not like there is much of Thallus' writings and it seems an odd point to make.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed by mistake

I additionally note that you removed the claim that Richard Carrier, a prominent advocate of the Christ myth theory, argues that a mistake making it the 227 or 237 Olympiads is more likely giving the end dates of 132 AD and 172 AD respectively. This claim was cited to The Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, a peer-reviewed journal not infidels. I assume that this claim was removed by mistake so can I restore it? ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the comment here. The reasons why I removed this particular claim is one, Richard Carrier is not an expert on Thallus (has almost no peer reviewed history on Thallus except for the one you mentioned and it was focused on relevance to Jesus and the Gospels, not Thallus as a historian) two, in the paper he recognizes the consensus view "Indeed that is what most scholars have concluded. However, it is typically claimed that the most likely correction to the text brings us a closing date at the 207th Olympiad, or 52 ce, but there is no solid basis for this conclusion." so Carrier's view is UNDUE. The current source on Thallus is by actual editors of Thallus' works so they are more appropriate to cite on this than Carrier. If you can find a source with more focus and experience on Thallus then that would be fine. Finally, the fact that Carrier is a fringe historian (no researchers seem to cite his works) who tends to self-publish on almost every topic makes his work less usable on top of the previous two reasons. I am sure better sources are out there than him.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, your primary concern with the Journal article is that it gives undue weight as it is a peer reviewed source and therefore reliable however you feel about Carrier (I will speak about that above). I will note that my intention was not to suggest that advocates for 227/237 were in the majority but to say that 207/217 was not universally believed amongst scholars and not with a high level of confidence. I believe that my addition to the article had due weight for three reasons:

1. As I have noted, confidence in exactly what the error should read (besides that it should lie somewhere in-between Jesus's death and 180 AD) appears to be low and that there is no evidence pointing in any particular direction. Further more it is addressed by extremely few scholars. This is not a case of 'the earth is round' or 'werewolves don't exist'.
2. The weight the comment is given is extremely low. It is on a specific article, in a specific section, for a single sentence, and has a note attached pointing out that the author had a particular viewpoint on the related subject. The Christ Myth Theory, by contrast, has a whole section on the Historicity of Jesus article despite the fact that Jesus's existence has far more evidence for it than this specific error.
3. Due is normally applied to theories that do not have any supporting RSes or at least very few. This is from a doctor in ancient history in a peer reviewed journal.

~ El D. (talk to me) 12:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Merely having a peer reviewed source is not enough to establish him as a citable source on the matter since he is a controversial figure, tends to self-publish, has never held an academic position at an institution like a university or college, has not received grants for his research and actually he is very fishy since he has patrons that pay for him to make his writings. If Carrier had less baggage then he would be in a better position as a source.

To your points: (first one) Carrier's comments are not really representative of the consensus view. The fact that the consensus is what it is, means that there are convincing arguments generally held by scholars for holding such a view. Carrier merely dismisses their views and acts like there is no good reason for the Conesus to be what it is. He does this quite a lot in his writings. Most scholars build their arguments through multiple peer reviewed contributions that eventually will at least establish the view as scholarly worthy. But his approach in his writings is to claim that the consensus does not know what they are talking about.

(second one) the fact that he is a fringe author with established biases for anything Christian does not help his case. If you have read Carrier's other works, his views are extreme and no scholars agree with his wholesale dismissal of sources.

(third one) Due and undue is defined in the NPOV policy as being about majority views (consensus) vs fringe views (Carrier) - sources can be from peer reviewed journals and still be UNDUE because even nonsense and fringe views gets published. Being published in a journal does not make the paper mainstream. Anyways, the NPOV policy states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Carrier having credentials and publishing in a journal does not make him an authority on the matter. The fact that no researchers cite his works on Thallus or other historical topics means he is not much of a source for his own peers in the field of ancient history. Actually he seems to get criticized in academic literature most often than anything else. He rants about it on his blog all the time.

In short, if you can find reliable sources that are from better more established scholars on the matter then you may have something, but to cite Carrier on such a specific claim (as if he has done research on dating Thallus) as a source is UNDUE. Actual authorities on Thallus are out there and those can be cited. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What are these good reasons that the date is what it is? Can you present me with a list of authorities on Thallus? If you answered these questions, I'd be happier dismissing Carrier and would even see about including them in article text. ~ El D. (talk to me) 09:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a source saying that Thallus may have written at a late date - against the consensus view - I am objecting to using Carrier here since he is a controversial historian who is usually fringe on what he writes. He is not known for good scholarship by academics - which is why nobody cites him, except to criticize his conclusions. Carrier in the actual paper on page 189, does not even provide much of a reason for his numbers of "227th or 237th Olympiads, which end in 132 or 172 ce" and merely asserts that his thinking is correct an "likely". Ironically he cites himself in his infidels article he wrote (not peer reviewed source) for those exact numbers not other authorities. He basically rests his case on a tweaking of a corrupted Armenian text of Eusebius for the dates. Whereas the original consensus view tweaks it to be much less. But that is only one piece of the puzzle.

In terms of the consensus view, we are not in a position to argue over if the consensus view makes sense to you or me. The point is that none of the authorities on Thallus argue for Carrier's fringe view. Better sources are out there than him. Here is one that immerses into Thallus [2]. There Horace Rigg states that Africanus the Church Father states that Thallus wrote about a darkness event from the "the fifteenth year of Tiberius (i.e., first year of the 209nd Olympiad)" This corresponds to 29 AD as the earliest possible date for Thallus. We know that the earliest reference of thallus comes from around AD 180 by Theophilus. So this is the possible range. Robert Van Voorst in his anthology of ancient sources in "Jesus Outside the New Testament" pages 20-23 states that most scholars date Thallus around 50 AD and provides an excellent summary of the consensus view. And most scholars have adopted Josephus reference (reconstructed) as possibly indicating this is Thallus the Samaritan, though this is a conjecture.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Carrier's reasoning is that ρξζ (167) is more likely to have originally been σκζ (227) or σλζ (237) than σ ζ (207) or σιζ (217). However, re-reading the article text, I feel that there would need to be more space given to the consensus view to include a mythicist view. I will have a look at adding in more detail to that before I re-discuss this point. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for most scholars have adopted Josephus reference (reconstructed) as possibly indicating this is Thallus the Samaritan? Preferably a recent source, Carrier suggests that this has changed relatively recently. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Carrier is not an authority on this so his view or comments are not a basis of the status of the scholarship - he is the fringe view and must convince the consensus, not the other way around. Furthermore, since mythicist views are fringe, they do not belong here (like citing holocaust denier researchers on articles on the holocaust). His views belong in a mythicist article like the NPOV policy stated. Furthermore, his own reworking of the Armenian source does not have any corroboration among scholars. He certainly does not cite any scholars for the numbers except himself - it is his own conjecture. Furthermore, he does not say that the view on Josephus has changed. He merely asserts that his own reasoning is correct and boldly claims ". "..so no historian today should still repeat these claims." on footnote 8. It is his suggestion on the matter, not an observation of change in views by scholars on the matter. No one has cited Carrier for his claims on this at all either so he is the only one with that view. He does this a lot in his writings. For example, he will cite mainstream non-mythicists in his writings and act like the mythicism is prevalent already since some argue similar points he agrees with, while ignoring that the same scholars he cites are not proponents of mythicism at all. Can you show that any other scholars have agreed with his reconstruction of σκζ (227) or σλζ (237)? This only one piece of the puzzle too, not the determining factor of the date of writing by the way. There is more to it than that.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Eclipses impossible because of Passover

″Solar eclipses are impossible at Passover″ is rather a poorly-constructed sentence, as solar eclipses are rather less avoidable than a calculated human cultural artefact like Passover. I've revised the graphic caption to ″Passover cannot take place at times when a solar eclipse is possible.″ Centrepull (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the source and it makes no such claim. It is a textbook for students and usually they do not make such claims on religious matters. So I removed it. Someone added that clause in 2014 and it was clearly WP:OR. Thanks for pointing this out.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit was on the basis of improving grammar from the inverted 'cause and effect' wording it had before. There's nothing wrong with the intended meaning. Solar eclipses can only take place during a new moon. I'm pretty sure that Passover is always during a full moon, therefore by definition, Passover can never take place when there is a solar eclipse. Your edit also removed the context of the caption and created conflicts between the image and the main text. Reverting now, with an appropriate ref: http://www.meteor.wisc.edu/~hopkins/dstreme/97easter.htm Centrepull (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I checked your other source and it does not say anything about solar eclipses or Thallus or impossibilities with Passover. No mention of eclipses is there at all. eclipses in general. It focuses only on dating the cricifixion, not if there eclipses happened. And it explicitly says "Difficulties arise in determining the beginning of Nisan. Unfortunately, the Hebrew calendar of the first century A.D. is not adequately documented and must be reconstructed from fragmentary evidence." So it is not really exact.

As such, I am removing it again. The clause you tried to reword does not belong in the image either as that is complicated argument by the earliest Christian sources. That argument is already in the body of the article. A general image of a solar eclipse with the generic description already there: "A solar eclipse. It takes about an hour for the moon to cover the sun, with total coverage lasting a few minutes." is all that is needed.

I also think that the running sentence summarizing Thallus and Christian views gives the wrong impression because it is actually the Christians who came up with the argument that the solar eclipse could not have happened at the time of the Passover because the Passover usually occurs when there is a full moon. See the references [3] and [4] The way it sounds, is like as if the early Christians believed that the darkness was a solar eclipse. They did not. So I will adjust per the sources again with some modification.

The article is about Thallus, but it looks like the lead focuses too much on the Christian interpretations of Thallus. It probably can be shortened a bit and the rest put in the section of the article about Christians using Thallus. It should make the lead more NPOV.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Voorst, Thallos mentions both Jesus' death and solar eclipse

Thank you Ramos for providing the extensive quote from Voorst. However the Voorst quote proves my point precisely: it is not Julius Africanus who puts the eclipse in the context of the crucifixion, instead Voorst states it is evidently Thallos who has raised both points (Jesus' death and the solar eclipse). You keep deleting Thallos' reference to Jesus despite your own clear Voorst reference:

"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."

Your omission is not a minor error, but yanks away the basis of the scholarly question at which time Thallos was writing, before or after Jesus (cf. the olympiad discussion). 2A00:23C6:5497:8B01:7D41:447C:36B8:799 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The wording you have is muddled: "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, apparently (according to the early Christian scholar Africanus) refers to the purported darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus and denounces it as a solar eclipse." It does not break apart the variables.

From your wording it seems like you are saying that Thallus actually was referring to Jesus' death. But Van Voorst is saying that it seems likely that that would be case - based on assumptions of Africanus and how he uses sources - not on what Thallus actually wrote (which we do not have). Van Voorst says "Thallos could have mentioned the eclipse with no reference to Jesus."

We do not know for sure what Thallus wrote. We are going off of what Julius Africanus wrote and assuming things on Africanus as a the basis for what Thallus wrote.

I think that when you wrote "...apparently (according to the early Christian scholar Africanus) refers to the purported darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus and denounces it as a solar eclipse." Is off a little because Africanus does not denounce the darkness as a solar eclipse - he says that the darkness is a supernatural event from God.

From Voorst: "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." "

I was trying to break the variables to components: 1) Thallus wrote something on a solar eclipse in the third book of his histories, 2) Christians like Africanus interpreted that part of Thallus as referring to Jesus, 3) Africanus claimed that the solar eclipse was wrong and impossible since Christ dies near the time of the Passover 4) so instead Africanus claimed that the darkness in Gospels would have been a supernatural event induced by God than a solar eclipse.

Numerous editors keep on assuming that Christians like Africanus were arguing that the eclipse from Thallus was the explanation for the darkness in the Gospels, but that is not what they are saying at all. Christians like Africanus did not accept the eclipse as the explanation for the darkness in the gospels. That is what I was trying to clear up. What do you think?Ramos1990 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Ramos. You are misreading Voorst - who favours only two variables (Thallus' crucifixion darkness criticism per solar eclipse, versus Julius Africanus' counterclaim), according to Voorst's best estimate (see quote above, second sentence "But it is more likely ..."). If you wish to claim that Thallus was not criticising the purported crucifixion darkness but instead was referring to a solar eclipse for other reasons, then you certainly need a different reference instead of Voorst. I suggest that if you wish to go down that path, you would need to cite scholarly references which maintain that Thallus was writing at a time before Jesus. But that would open other cans of worms, and my sincere advice is that it is not worth your while to ruin the Thallos article just to combat a Christian fringe view. Life is too short. 2A00:23C6:5497:8B01:E9D8:DE7F:6BEB:2AE7 (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think I am misreading Voorst. Keep in mind that "But it is more likely ..." is an argument from modern scholars. This is how they see the situation along with them also admitting "Thallos could have mentioned the eclipse with no reference to Jesus." So attribution would likely be needed to clarify who is making such a claim. Also, we do not know exacly when Thallus wrote his works. There is a long range of guessing on if he wrote before or after Christ. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of Voorst's text is that Voorst is setting up an academic straw man ("Thallos possibly made no mention of the crucifixion") and then Voorst shoots down the straw man by asserting that Julianus Africanus would have no reason to be piqued if Thallos had not explicitly challenged the Christian tradition of a divine darkness at crucifixion. Voorst explicitly favours the latter view ("But it is more likely ..."). So Voorst is not an appropriate reference for presenting the theory on Wikipedia that Thallos made no mention of the crucifixion. But please feel free to find an appropriate reference and I will then support you.

Its pretty clear that he is stating the possible situations and it is he who favors a particular situation based on trust in how Africanus uses sources. There really is no other visible path to take since we do not have anythng else to go off of. I was never suggesting that Thallus did not reference the crucifixion (no one knows for sure either way). But the 4 point break down I presented is the basic situation. All of material on Thallus' comes through the filter of Africanus exclusively. And the official Christian position is that the darkness was induced by God, not a solar eclipse. However, many editors have constantly and incorrectly assumed that Christians agreed with Thallus' solar eclipse explanation. That is what I was trying to clear up.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything here, except concerning your last sentence: if certain other editors failed to understand previous versions of the article (and the version two days ago was confusing, to be honest), then I suggest we give them a few weeks to read and understand the current version. If they still fail to intellectually grasp the narrative, as you indicate, then we need to listen to their problems and possibly go through another round of editing to get them intellectually on board.