More to the point, it is doubtful that Pliny would have recorded this event in any case, unless he had been there himself. The darkness at the crucifixion, as we see from Thallus, defied natural explanation, and had the character of a miracle; and this is precisely the sort of event that Pliny would pass over in disdain – for he was a skeptic and a rationalist of the highest order. Consider these words from Pliny’s pen [ibid., 179, 183]:
I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to discover the shape and form of God.
That that supreme being, whatever it be, pays heed to man’s affairs is a ridiculous notion.
Given the above, what would this writer have made of reports of a miraculous and unexplained darkness? My guess is, he would turn up his nose and relegate the matter to the wastebasket. He would consider such reports unworthy of his attention and not worth recording.
What, then, of Seneca and his work, Naturales Questiones [Sen.NQ]? There is even less cause to suppose mention of the darkness here. Seneca’s work is mostly theoretical surveys of natural phenomena – by no means an attempt at an exhaustive catalog of events – and Seneca is far more concerned with drawing morals from what he records that with listing events, of which he does very little.
As for Josephus, while that may seem a tougher one, it isn’t — we need to keep in mind a major constraint Josephus was under at the time. Josephus was writing for the favor of his patron Vespasian, whom he had credited with fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Josephus was quite safe mentioning that Jesus did miracles, but to ascribe to Jesus some sign that would have signified special status with God — like the darkness — would have been at cross-purposes with what his patron would have been happy with.
Bottom line: For this objection to have any force, it must be shown why these writers should have included a reference to the darkness – but for Seneca and Pliny, there is simply no evidence that they should have, or would have been interested in recording it, and Josephus would have been inclined if anything to not report it.
-JPH
Pliny — Not Too Bright? In response to my point about Pliny being a rationalist and skeptic, someone produced this this quote from Pliny’s Natural History: ‘It is also reported that once several suns were seen at midday at the Bosphorus, and that these lasted from dawn till sunset. In former times three suns have often been seen at once, for example in the consulships of Spurius Postumius and Quintus Mucius of Quintus Marcius and Marcus Porcius, of Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabellal and of Marcus Lepidus and Lucius Plancus; and our generation saw this during the principate of his late Majesty Claudius, in his consulship, when Cornelius Orfitus was his colleague. It is not stated that more than three suns at a time have ever been seen hitherto.’ and Pliny continues ‘Also three moons have appeared at once, for instance in the consulship of Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Fannius.’ The apparent point here being, that our critic thought that this was a “miracle” that Pliny felt was worth reporting. But that’s just the problem. Apparently, Pliny did not think of this as a miracle, but as a natural event — and that is precisely what it is. Here is an example of that very phenomenon — it’s called a “sun dog.” (It happens with the moon sometimes, too.) It’s a phenomenon that many witnesses describe as looking like three suns, just as Pliny did. For example, see here: May I use this opportunity to correct another popular misconception about Die Winterreise. In the penultimate song, its protagonist sees “three suns” in the sky. This is frequently taken as an indication that he is not in his right mind, but in fact, the phenomenon of “mock suns” or “sun dogs”-pillars of light on either side of the sun-really exists. It is discussed by Kenneth Heuer in his book, Rainbows, Halos and Other Wonders. It may also be worth mentioning that Schubert died of typhus fever, not of tuberculosis. And here’s another from a link now dead, formerly at http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/interviews/matrox/parhelia/: Good question, figured a few people would be scratching their heads at that one. A Parhelia is an atmospheric effect which occurs when sunlight is diffracted by ice crystals in the lower atmosphere. The result is the illusion of two smaller suns on either side, or Sun dogs as they are also referred to. We have a flash demo that shows the animated effect. As the Parhelia-512 delivers top-notch quality, performance and features (three suns), supports three displays and is the world’s first 512-bit GPU, what could be more appropriate than the Parhelia-512? Another, from the now defunct http://www.hum.gu.se/arkiv/ONN/1998onn/II/msg00160.html: One more, from the now-defunct http://www.frozentoes.com/expedition/reports/report5.htm: It was late in the afternoon. We set off again. The sun was low in the arctic north west, straddled by a pair of beautiful sun dogs, an atmospheric phenomena where the sunlight is refracted by upper atmospheric ice crystals and on either side of the sun an apparition of the sun appears. It can look as if there are three suns hanging low in the sky. Flummoxed by these quotes, my critic tried a new tack: Pliny writes ‘Historical record also exists of thunderbolts being either caused by or vouchsafed in answer to certain rites and prayers. There is an old story of the latter in Tuscany, when the portent which they called Olta came to the city of Bolsena, when its territory had been devastated; it was sent in answer to the prayer of its king Porsina.’ But we need to quote some more relevant words from that passage in Pliny…. On this matter the opinion of mankind varies, in correspondence with our individual dispositions. It takes a bold man to believe that Nature obeys the behests of ritual, and equally it takes a dull man to deny that ritual has beneficent powers, when knowledge has made such progress even in the interpretation of thunderbolts that it can prophecy that others will come on a fixed day, and whether they will destroy a previous one or other previous ones that are concealed: this progress has been made by public and private experiments in both fields. In consequence although such indications are certain in some cases but doubtful in others, and approved to some persons but in the view of others to be condemned, in accordance with Nature’s will and pleasure, we for our part are not going to leave out the rest of the things worth recording in this department. It seems that Pliny doesn’t attribute this to deities or divine intervention, does he? “Nature obeys” — not Jove, even if he was the subject of the prayer? Ritual has beneficient powers — not “the gods can do this”? Pliny may have been gullible at times, and his scientific interpretations are ofren quite fanciful from our later perspective — but he was sure no proponent of the concept of divine intervention. So in sum: Pliny often recorded things which defied rational explanation, but he never recorded things atrributed to divine intervention, as such; he recorded things that we know, in “hindsight”, defied rational explanation — even as he himself, not having enough data, may not have thought they did. In other words, we know that a rain of bricks, and that dog-headed people, “defy rational explanation”; but Pliny would hardly have been in a position to say so himself, lacking as he did the data that tells us what is irrational! To be a Skeptic or rationalist in Pliny’s time was a much broader equation. None of Pliny’s reports of things like heavenly armies; rains of milk, blood, iron, wool or bricks; of unspoiled carrion; of fire in the sky — are examples from Pliny of “a supreme being” paying heed to man’s affairs, as the darkness was credited to be.
Suetonius’ Testimony on Jesus [Background Data] [Is It Jesus?] [Suetonius: A Reliable Source] [Conclusions]
We now move to the references to Jesus in secular sources that have little value – beginning with the testimony of the Roman historian and contemporary of Tacitus, Suetonius. Here is the first of the two relevant quotes:
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
A second quote does not mention Jesus, but refers to Christians being persecuted under Nero.
Does this passage really refer to Jesus?
This is the key objection to using this passage. “Chrestus,” as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Benko, for example, has suggested that “Chrestus” was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells “Christians” correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled “Christus.” [see Benk.EC49, 410-3] . Some may find support for this in that Suetonius’ sentence literally refers to “the instigator,” not actually “the instigation.” [VanV.JONT, 31, 33; who counters, though, that the name “Chrestus” is otherwise unattested among the Jews.
Other ideas of note:
- One author suggested that the reference was to Jesus Himself – still alive, and visiting Rome in the 40s AD!]
- Mason [Maso.JosNT, 166] believes that the reference is to Jesus, but that Suetonius altered the name he heard to that of a common slave name.
- Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 22; see also Harr.GosP5, 354, VanV.JONT, 34-5] notes that the substitution of an “e” for an “i” was “a common error in the spelling of proper names” at the time.
- Van Voorst adds the peculiarity of a gravestone that offers both spellings at once.
- Harris also says that because Suetonius did not say, “at the institution of a certain Chrestus,” the historian expected that his readers would know the person that he was referring to – hence, this “Chrestus” could not have been merely a Jewish agitator, for there was only one possible “Chrestus” that Suetonius could have been referring to that would have been so well known at the time he was writing (120 AD).
It may be that Suetonius wrongly presumed from one of his sources that Chrestus had at some time in the past personally delivered His message to Rome, and that is why he seems to indicate that Chrestus was directly behind the agitation. [ibid., 356] Harris also explains, in an amusing footnote, that to Greek ears, the name “Christos” would have sounded like something drawn from medical or building technology, meaning either “anointed” or “plastered”! (The Romans who heard these Jews talking about “Christus” assumed that, perhaps, another type of “plastering” was going on!) So, they switched it to the more comprehensible “Chrestus,” which means “useful one.”
Harris further indicates, via a quote from the 4th-century Latin Christian Lactantius, that Jesus was commonly called “Chrestus” by those who were ignorant.
Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?
I now have two varying opinions on this subject. One source would say, if this is indeed a reference to Jesus, then it is a good one, nearly as good as Tacitus’. Suetonius was known as “a painstaking researcher, interested in minute details,” [Benk.PagRo, 14] as well as a prolific writer in matters of history and antiquities, including biographies of Julius Caesar and several Roman emperors – this was a man “in a position to know!” – see Harr.GosP5, 353) On the other hand, Van Voorst [VanV.JONT, 38] tells us of Suetonius, “[r]epeating a mistake in his sources is characteristic of Suetonius, who often treats then uncritically and uses them carelessly.” Benko and Van Voorst are both modern and equally qualified, so for now, take your pick.
The only way to completely devalue the Suetonius reference is to say that it has nothing to do with Jesus, or with Christians, at all. The issue is an open one, and since we have Tacitus (who both wrote earlier and gave far more information), this reference is not really that important.
What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?
At worst, the passage reflects Suetonius’ confusion after hearing about Jews arguing over a “Chri/estus” who the Christian Jews would have spoken of as still alive. This, and the second passage referring to persecution of Christians, provides us with nothing that we do not find elsewhere or that can be substantially used. Perhaps more important is the possible historical connection with the expulsion of Jews from Rome referred to in Acts (which is commonly dated in 49 AD, though some prefer 41 AD – see Wlkn.JUF, 215; Benk.EC49, 407-415; and Harr.3Cruc, 23 for a nice sampling of opinions).
If there were Christians in Rome in 41-49 AD, then that’s a pretty strong indication that Jesus existed, since His life would have been well within the memories of those living at the time.
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail2456 words · 165 views