Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:36:15.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thallus: The Samaritan?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

Horace A. Rigg Jr.
Horace A. Rigg Jr.
Affiliation:
Western Reserve University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the extant writings of certain of the Church Fathers there are some interesting references to a man named Thallus. At the present time, beyond what can be inferred from these early Christian references, nothing is certainly known about him. In recent years, however, attempts have been made to fix the identity of this Thallus. Because of its potential significance for the early history of the gospel tradition, one of these attempts has become rather popular. Much of the acclaim over this suggested identification would seem to be based on a confusion between what has recently been said about Thallus and what is actually known about him from the early Christian references. Consequently, numerous errors of fact and fancy have arisen. It is the purpose of this paper to investigate, first, what is actually known about the Thallus referred to by the Church Fathers, and second, the validity of the identification currently proposed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1941 , pp. 111 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am indebted, for helpful suggestions, to my colleagues Professor C. P. Bill and Dr. N. J. DeWitt, and, by correspondence, to Professors K. Lake and J. Whatmough (Harvard University), R. Marcus (Columbia University) and Mr. H. Youtie (University of Michigan). I wish particularly to thank Professor A. D. Nock for critical suggestions regarding the final form of this paper. None of them is, of course, responsible for the errors I may have committed.

2 There is no essential difference in these two collections. The Chron. of Eusebius survives only in an Armenian version (authoritatively translated by Petermann) cf. Karst, G. C. S. (Die Griech. Christi. Schriftsteller), XX (Leipzig, 1911), 125, 22, 23. Not fully cited by Müller or by Jacoby, but important, in my opinion, is Africanus, ap. Euseb. P. E., x, 10, p. 488 C (ed. Gifford, II, 39): ĸαὶ Τῶν Θαλλοῦ ĸαὶ ĸάστορος ἱστοριῶν, ἔτι δὲ Πολυβίου ĸαὶ ϕλέγοντος ἔστιν εὑρεῖν, ἀλλὰ ĸαὶ ἐτέρων, οἶς ἐμέλησεν Ὀλυµπιάδων. “And the histories of Thallus and Kastor, also from Polybius and Phlegon, and from others too who were careful about Olympiads”.

3 It is not here pertinent to discuss the textual problems involved. They do not materially alter, in any case, the translations.

4 Cf. Schürer Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes, III, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1898), 368–369. The exact title and nature of this work of Thallus can only be guessed at now. On this point the Armenian version of the Eusebian Chron. is correctly translated by Petermann: E Thalli tribus libris; cf. Waehsmuth, Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte (Leipzig, 1895), 146.

5 A specific part of which was devoted to Syria ([Ἀσ]συριαĸά? see F. Gr. Hist., 2D, p. 835) may be inferred from Eusebius, P. E., x, 10, p. 489 A. It is unlikely that this means a history of Syria, as Freudenthal thinks (Hellenist. Studien, I, 100 ff.); cf. Täubler, Rhein. Mus., N. F. LXXI (1916), 572 ff.

6 Cf. Christ, Gesch. d. Griech. Litteratur, II, 1, 6th ed. (München, 1920), 415 ff.

7 This is the opinion of R. Laqueur in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Thallos. It is true that, in all probability, a work of three books, chronicling over a thousand years of world history, cannot have gone much into detail. But it is also true that such works tend to be more detailed in the events nearest the author's own time. We cannot now tell how Thallus apportioned the events he recounted. He may have merely mentioned an eclipse in a given year which Christians, later, found useful in their description of the darkness accompanying the final Passion. But note, they do not seem to have felt that this mention of an eclipse buttressed only an argument in proof of the darkness (see note 15 below) — this seems to have been taken for granted — but rather (possibly it is something in the way it was mentioned) that the interpretation of Thallus irked them. Since his general euhemeristic tendency is reasonably clear (besides the direct citations of the Church Fathers, his name is usually linked with Kastor and Diodorus), his mention, no matter how brief, of this darkness held miraculous by the Christians, may have seemed an extension of his euhemerism which the Christians could only deprecate — as Africanus seems to do. For some interesting remarks on this general problem see M. P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion (Oxford, 1925), 279 ff.; cf. Susemihl, Griech. Litt. Gesch., I (Leipzig, 1891), 316 ff. and Jacoby, Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Euemeros.

8 The usual accuracy of historical quotation in Eusebius cannot help us here since we must here rely on the Armenian version; see Karst, op. cit., Prologomena and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, V (London, 1933), 471 ff.; cf. A. K. I. Schoene, Die Weltchronik des Eusebius (Berlin, 1900).

9 Note that Thallus is among those who have dealt carefully with the Olympiads (see note 2 above); cf. M. Goguel, Life of Jesus (Engl. transi., New York, 1933), 92.

10 For attempts to emend the corrupt numbers see Müller F. H. G., loc. cit.; R. Eisler, Ἰησοῦς βασιλεὺς ου βασίλευσας, II (Heidelberg, 1930), 140–141 and Goguel, Rev. Hist, des Religions, XCVIII (1928), 1 ff.

11 Here, briefly, are some of the things others have been able to find out about Thallus (based on the same data!). Christ, Gesch. d. Griech. Litteratur, II, 1 (1911), 319: “vermutlich hellenisierter Jude”; but see the next edition (1920), 415: “vermutlich hellenisierter Jude (Samaritaner? s. unten II5, 448. 3)” — this latter note duplicates II, 1 (1920), 591, n. 4! Täubler, Rhein. Mus., LXXI (1916), 572, suggests Thallus was the secretary of Augustus (Suet., August., 67); cf. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserl. Verwaltungsbeamten, 2nd ed., 324, n. 1. Willrich, Klio, III (1903), 106, n. 1, equates him with C. Julius Thallus (a freedman of Caligula?), cf. Hirschfeld, op. cit., 181, n. 3. He suggests that the freedman of Antonius (in Prosop. Rom., III, 309) is out of the question since he is a poet and not, therefore, rich enough! — “so könnte man C. J. Thallus den Ephraim seiner Zeit nennen, wie Alexander den Rothschild.” Thallus is thought to have been used by Vellius, so Christ, Philol. Stud, zu Clemens, 62; by Pseudolucian, Μαĸρόβιοι, so Rühl, Rhein. Mus., LXII (1907), 437, LXIV (1909), 137 ff., cf. Laqueur, Pauly-Wissowa, loc. cit. With all these, and more, the skepticism of Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist., 2D, pp. 835 ff. is to be compared.

12 Depending on how early we can place him within the dates established above, viz., A.D. 29–A.D. 220/221; cf. Schürer, loc. cit.

13 But see Guignebert, Jesus (Engl. transl., New York, 1935), 13, n. 1.

14 See Mk., XV, 33 (cf. Luke, XXIII, 45) and Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, II (Cambridge and London, 1882), 69 ff.; cf. Eisler, op. cit., II, 138 ff. The significance of this passage was appreciated as early as South, Reliquiae Sacrae, 2nd ed., II (Oxonii, 1846–48), 297 and 472.

15 Had this been the question, the mere mention of it by a chronographer-historian such as Thallus would have given Africanus and other Christians valuable evidence in support of this particular tradition. Thus Euseb., Chron. (Karst, G. C. S. xx 213 = Migne, P. G. xix 535–536) uses the evidence of Phlegon of Sardis; cf. Origen, C. Celsum, II, 33, 59 (Koetschau, G. C. S., ii, 159–160, 182). This argument can be overstressed, as I think Goguel does in Life of Jesus, loc. cit. Thallus, after all, may have simply been acquainted with the account of the crucifixion currently held by the Christians and felt called upon to explain it “rationally.”

16 Goguel, op. cit., 92, stretches the meaning of Schürer's “so ist es sehr wahrscheinlich” into identification. He also claims the support of Christ, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur, 4th ed. (1905), 705 who there says “vermutlich”; but in the 6th ed., II, 1 (1920), 415, n. 2, the identification is rejected: “beruht auf falscher Lesung von Ios. ant. Iud. XVIII 167.” Eisler, loc. cit., gives Statements, no proofs.

17 Niese here exactly reproduces the editio princeps: ed. Arlenius (Basileae, 1544), 560.

18 So far as I know, no editor previously had altered this passage. Thus, Opera (Aurel. Allobrog., 1611), 631, gives ἄλλος but translates with a proper name Allus! This is one example, at least several others are available, showing that the grammatical difficulty of ἄλλος was felt before the eighteenth century.

19 E is only a summary of the full text. At this point it reads: ĸαὶ δὴ τις ἦν Σαµαρεὺς γένος, ĸτλ.; see Niese's edition of E (Berlin, 1896). Goguel, op. cit., 93, n. 1 and I. Miévis, Rev. Belge de Philol. et d'Hist., XIII (1934), 733 ff., esp. 734, n. 5 (I owe this reference to Dr. R. Marcus), state that E here is a correction intended to eliminate an obscure passage — for which motive they adduce no proof.

20 The rise of the moral wrath against this corruption has a revealing history. The theme is nearly always the same, viz., a note explaining the emendation which reads: “Θαλλος Hudson ex Grutero, p. 599, n. 7.” Actually, the Hudson edition (1720), 810 states “& pro ἄλλος ex conjectura reposui Θαλλος, quem inter Tiberii Augusti libertos fuisse constat ex Gruteri Inscriptionibus, p. DXCIX n. 7.” In Gruter, Corpus Inscriptionum (Amst. 1707), Pag. DXCIX, n. 7, are two inscriptions which contain the name Thallus, of the Imperial house of Claudius. (For freedmen of Claudius see now V. Scramuzza, ‘The Emperor Claudius’, Harvard Historical Studies, XLIV (Cambridge, 1940), 11 ff.) In the notes (of Graevius) there is the suggestion that, since not only Thallus but Hallus is found, this latter might be connected with Josephus, Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 8 “ubi tantum scribendum cum aspiratione ἅλλον.” Thus, it is not the grammar of ἄλλος but the possible change in the initial aspirate marking! Gruter, loc. cit. = C. I. L., vi, 2, No. 8649. Curiously enough, the theme has become so stereotyped (or Gruter neglected?) that even Niese states: “Ex Grutero p. 599 n. 7 (C. I. L. vi 3 p 1761)” — where other Thallus inscriptions are listed but not Gruter's!

21 Thus, e.g., besides all the editors of Josephus except Niese, Hirschfeld, op. cit., 181, n. 3; Gelzer, Sext. Jul. Africanus, II (1885), 96; Freudenthal, op. cit., I, 100 ff.; Wachsmuth, Einleitung (1895), 146 ff. and Goguel, op. cit., 92–93. Cf. Laqueur, Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Thallos.

22 I. Miévis, loc. cit.

23 For examples of pejorative ἄνθρωπος see the new Liddell and Scott lexicon and in the profane papyri see Fr. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der Griech. Papyrusurkunde, I (Berlin, 1925).

24 There is no evidence that such a change has ever taken place in the available manuscripts. Such a change is, besides, not the only possible one; cf. Hall, Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford, 1913), 158 ff. and F. J. Bast, Commentatio Paleographies appended to G. H. Schaeffer's edition of Gregorius Corinthius (Leipzig, 1811). Taking the letters individually it is not even the most likely change. For the literature on this subject see Weinberger, Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Kurzschrift.

25 Ἄάνθρωπος is one of the nomina sacra, for which see Traube, ‘Nomina Sacra,’ Quellen u. Untersuchungen z. latein. Philol. d. Mittelalters, II (München, 1907) to which Gardthausen, Griech. Paleogr., II (1913), 326 ff. adds nothing. Cf. C. H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in John Ryland's Library (Manchester, 1936), 44, n. 27. For the Beatty collection see Kenyon, ‘Nomina Sacra’, Aegyptus, XIII (1933), 5 ff. and Rudberg, ‘De Nominibus sacris adnotatiuneulae’, Eranos, XXXIII (1935), 147 ff. (these last references I owe to Mr. Youtie).

26 Thus Niese, Antiq. Iud., XVIII, 118: “τῶν ἄλλων: ex corr. A periplurima multitudo Lat ἀνθρώπων coni.”

27 Thus, at random:

Papyrus22 (Oxyrhynchus Pap. 1228): ἄνθρωπος = ; so also Papyrus20 (Princeton Univ. Library A. M. 4117; Papyrus47 (Chester Beatty Pap. III): ἀνθρώπων = ; Codex Alexandrinus in MK., XX, 33: ; MK., XI, 3: .

28 The system of contraction extended scarcely at all outside Christian literature in Greek paleography and in manuscripts of general literature. Where there was any abbreviation the system of suspension prevailed; see e.g., E. M. Thompson, Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography (Oxford, 1912), 75 ff. The evidence is not convincing that ἄνθρωπος was contracted when it was not clearly one of the known (and strictly limited in number) nomina sacra.

29 Kühner-Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik, II, 1 (1898), 275, Anmerk., 1; cf. Wacknernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax, 2nd ed., II (Basel, 1928), 97 ff. It is to be noted (1) that this particular Samaritan is not elsewhere mentioned by name or otherwise (2) that Josephus is not averse to introducing into his narrative individuals who have not been specifically named.

30 Thus, one might say: ĸαὶ γὰρ ἦν Θάλλος ĸαὶ ἄλλος Σαμαρεύς “There was Thallus, and a Samaritan besides.” In this statement γένος would be gratuitous.

31 See Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd ed., II, 2 (Strassburg, 1911), 358; cf. Brugmann, Griech. Grammatik (München, 1913), 281 and now E. Schwyzer, Griech. Grammatik (München, 1939), 614. Professor Whatmough has kindly pointed out to me, by letter, that the original declension as a pronoun survives in Sanscrit and Gothic as well as in Greek and Latin (aliud, like id, istud, not alium, neut. sg. nom. and acc.). Cf. C. D. Buck, Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Chicago, 1933), 142.

32 As elsewhere: so listed, e.g., in Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge, 1938), 15. See Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, II (New York, 1911), 599; cf. Goodwin, Greek Grammar (1892), 966. For the Thucydidean passage cited above, and others, see the editio altera of Stahl, IV, 1 (Leipzig, 1882), 140.

33 “That this Thucydidean is thus responsible for writing practically the whole of books XVII–XIX appears unquestionable: his speech bewrays him”, H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and his Work (New York, 1929), 113.

34 But see below.

35 Whether this is another of the “Thucydidean” assistant's examples of “periphrasis” (Thackeray, loc. cit.) is an interesting, but at present insoluble, problem.

36 Sometimes the Latin is even more exact; cf. Antiq. Iud., XVIII, iv, 2 (ed. Niese, 88): samareorum gente, and, for the passage under examination, quidam genere samareus.

37 Cf. the Clementines, Hom., II, 19 ff., and Rec., II, 7 ff.: Σαμαρεὺς τὸ ἔθνος (gente Samareus) and Justin, Dial. cum Tryph., 120 (cf. Apol., II, 15) where the inhabitants of the district of Samaria are meant, not the Samaritans as a religious sect. See G. F. Moore, Judaism, I (Cambridge, 1927), 24, n. 5. For this problem see J. J. Wetstein's note at Matt., X, 5 in his Novum Testamentum (Amst. 1751); cf. Beer, Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Samaria; E. Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfänge, III (Stuttgart u. Berlin, 1933), 277; and R. Casey in Beginnings of Christianity, V, 151 ff.

38 This punctuation and translation have the able confirmation of Professors Whatmough and Lake, and Mr. Youtie. The context of this passage implies that Agrippa has raised a sum of money in one direction and now borrows another sum with which to pay off the former from another source, viz., a certain Imperial freedman who happened to be a Samaritan. It is wishful thinking to translate the last phrase, as so many do, “freedman of Tiberius.” The Greek does not say “Tiberius.” Curiously enough, at least two of the older translations were not misled by this passage. See Sir Roger L'Estrange, Works of F. Josephus (London, 1725), 492: “There was at that time a freeman of Cesar's, a Samaritan” and B. Thompson & W. C. Price, Whole Works of Josephus (London, 1795), 337: “At this period a Samaritan, one of Caesar's freedmen.”

39 The Latin reads: erat ibi forte quidam genere Samareus, libertos Caesaris; so Opera, ed. J. Sobius (1524). Note that this considerably antedates the editio princeps in Greek.