“The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…”

The Gospel Accounts — What the Texts Say

The rending of the temple veil is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), though each places it slightly differently in the sequence of events. The texts themselves are brief but precise:

Matthew 27:50-51 (): “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.”

Mark 15:37-38 (): “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.”

Luke 23:45 (): “And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.”

The key detail consistent across the accounts is that the veil was torn “from the top to the bottom” — emphasizing this was not a human act (which would tear from the bottom upward) but an act of God . John’s Gospel does not record the event, though the early church fathers addressed this apparent omission.

What the Veil Actually Was — Physical Description

The temple veil (the katapetasma in Greek) was far from an ordinary curtain. The most detailed physical description comes from Josephus, who describes the veils of Herod’s Temple:

The veil was a “Babylonian curtain” — a massive tapestry of extraordinary craftsmanship . According to Josephus, it measured fifty-five cubits in height (roughly 80-90 feet) and sixteen cubits in width (about 25-30 feet) . It was embroidered with blue, fine linen, scarlet, and purple — the four colors carrying cosmic symbolism.

Philo of Alexandria provides additional detail about the materials and their symbolic meaning . The veil was woven from:

  • Fine flax/linen — signifying the earth
  • Scarlet — signifying fire
  • Blue (hyacinth) — signifying the air
  • Purple — signifying the sea

Josephus adds that the curtain was “of a contexture that was truly wonderful” and had embroidered upon it “all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the twelve signs, representing living creatures” . It was, in effect, a woven image of the cosmos.

Josephus also tells us there was a second veil at the entrance of the Holy Place, made of linen, which could be drawn open and closed by cords for access on solemn days, serving as a protective covering for the inner veil .

The Arrangement of the Temple

The temple was structured in three ascending zones of holiness :

  1. The outer court — accessible to all (Jews and Gentiles alike)
  2. The Holy Place — accessible only to priests
  3. The Holy of Holies — accessible only to the High Priest, once per year on Yom Kippur

The veil in question was the inner veil separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place — the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant resided and where God’s presence (Shekinah) was believed to dwell. As Josephus explains, the veil “kept the most holy place concealed within: and this veil was that which made this part not visible to any” .

What the Rending Meant — The Patristic Interpretation

The early church fathers developed a rich, layered interpretation of this event:

The End of the Old Covenant and Access to God. Augustine of Hippo, in his harmony of the Gospels, carefully analyzes the timing: the veil was rent after Jesus yielded up His spirit, not before . This timing is crucial — it was Jesus’s death itself that tore the veil open. The author of Hebrews (cited repeatedly by the fathers) connects this directly to Christ as High Priest entering the heavenly Holy of Holies through “the veil, that is to say, His flesh” .

Christ’s Flesh as the True Veil. A striking typology emerges in the fathers: Christ’s own flesh was the true veil. When His flesh was torn on the cross, the earthly veil in the temple was torn as well, because the “type” had given way to the “reality.” As one patristic source puts it: “And because His flesh, this veil, was dishonoured, therefore the typical veil of the temple was rent asunder… for not a particle of it was left” .

The Transition from Shadow to Substance. Leo the Great’s sermon on the passion () describes it as a decisive transition: “Truth was displacing figures, and forerunners were needless in the presence of Him they announced.” The rending signified that the old sacrificial system was complete — the one true Sacrifice had been offered, and the barrier between God and humanity was removed.

Judgment on the Temple. John Chrysostom gives a dual interpretation: the torn veil was both a prophecy of the coming destruction of Jerusalem (fulfilled in 70 AD) and a sign that God was abandoning the temple . He writes: “This cry rent the veil, and opened the tombs, and made the house desolate… declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there.”

Universal Access Thrown Open. A 19th-century commentator (cited in Maimonides context) explains: “When, at the death of Christ, the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom, it was an emblem that the way to the holiest was laid open, and that the people at large, both Jews and Gentiles, were to have access to the holiest by the blood of Jesus” .

The Cosmic Significance. The poetical works of Prudentius (preserved in ANF) draw out another dimension: the veil dividing the inner from the outer temple was now burst, and “heavenly regions opened and holy vaults, and what was double erst became one house perennial” .

Modern Understandability — What We Can Reconstruct Today

The documents allow us to reconstruct the event with considerable clarity:

Physically, the veil was enormous — roughly 80-90 feet tall and 25-30 feet wide, a tapestry woven of four materials dyed in specific colors, embroidered with cosmic imagery. It would have been immensely heavy and thick, requiring extraordinary force to tear. The fact that it tore “from the top to the bottom” — a vertical split, not horizontal — underlined the supernatural nature of the event.

Symbolically, it functioned as the boundary between sinful humanity and the holy presence of God. Only the High Priest could pass it, and only once yearly after elaborate blood sacrifices. Its tearing signified that Jesus’s death had accomplished what animal sacrifices could not: permanent, open access to God.

Theologically, the early Christians interpreted this as the end of the old covenant order — the temple system of animal sacrifice, the separation of priests from laity, and the exclusive relationship with Israel — and the inauguration of a new covenant open to all peoples.

What’s Worth Noting — Gaps and Questions

The documents raise some interesting questions that aren’t fully resolved:

  • Why doesn’t John mention the torn veil? Augustine wrestles with this at length, ultimately suggesting John’s focus on the “It is finished” cry and the piercing of Jesus’s side serves as his equivalent.
  • Which veil exactly? Most sources refer to the inner veil before the Holy of Holies, but Josephus describes multiple veils — an outer one of linen that could be drawn aside, and the inner embroidered one. The texts are not perfectly clear whether the rending affected both or only the inner one.
  • Who witnessed it? The centurion and soldiers at the cross could not have seen into the temple from Golgotha — the rending was known either by later report from priests who fled the temple, or by supernatural revelation. The evangelists present it as a sign from God, not a publicly observed spectacle.

Dig Deeper:

  • “The fathers connect the torn temple veil with Christ’s flesh as a veil — what else in early Christian literature develops this typology of Christ’s flesh as a new and living way into the Holy of Holies?”
  • “Josephus describes the veil as an image of the cosmos with the four elements woven in — does he or any other Jewish source record what happened to the temple veil during the first Jewish war, and could the Gospel accounts of its rending reflect an actual historical event known to contemporaries?”
  • “The temple veil being torn from top to bottom is undeniably supernatural in the telling — how do the early apologists like Origen and Augustine defend this miracle against critics like Celsus who mocked the idea?”

Origen’s Defense: The Case Against Celsus

Celsus, writing in the late 2nd century, was the first major philosophical critic of Christianity. Through his lost work True Discourse, preserved only in Origen’s rebuttal Contra Celsum (c. 248 AD), he attacked the Gospel accounts of the passion miracles — the darkness, the earthquake, the torn veil, the opened tombs — as fabrications by the disciples.

Origen’s response operates on several fronts.

The accusation. Celsus charged that “both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention” . He argued that if Jesus were truly divine, he should have produced “great deeds” befitting a God — shaming his enemies, freeing himself from reproach, performing something visible and undeniable — rather than these murky portents that only his followers reported . The substance of Celsus’s critique was methodological: the miracles were not merely incredible, but conveniently unverifiable — they happened at a time and place where no impartial pagan chronicler could confirm them.

Origen’s first line of defense: the pagan witness Phlegon. Origen counters Celsus by citing a non-Christian source — Phlegon of Tralles, a freedman of the emperor Hadrian who wrote a chronicle of world events around the early 2nd century. Origen writes that Phlegon, “in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events… but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions” . More specifically, Phlegon recorded a solar eclipse “in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, from the sixth hour to the ninth” — a chronological match for the crucifixion darkness .

Origen drives the point home: if a pagan historian, not a Christian, independently records a midday darkness at the very time of the crucifixion, the charge of “invention” collapses. “He also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power” .

Origen’s second defense: you can’t pick and choose the Gospels. Origen turns Celsus’s own method against him: “If Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: ‘Sir, either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate'” . In other words, Celsus cannot cherry-pick — accepting the Gospel as a source for accusations (like Jesus drinking vinegar) while rejecting it as a source for divinity (the torn veil, the darkness).

Origen’s third defense: the centurion’s testimony. The Gospels record that even the centurion and the soldiers keeping watch, seeing the earthquake and the events that occurred, declared “Truly this man was the Son of God.” Origen notes pointedly: “if this Celsus… would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly afraid, saying, ‘This man was the Son of God'” . These were Roman soldiers — not disciples, not sympathizers — whose professional judgment was that something beyond nature had occurred.

Origen’s fourth defense: the continuing power of Jesus’s name. A remarkable argument: Origen points out that even in his own day, “those whom God wills are healed by His name” . The miracles did not stop with the passion — the same divine power continues to operate. The fact that pagan critics “see the sun become darkened at His death” (the darkness being an observable event) is itself a form of witness .

On the veil specifically. Origen addresses the veil tearing within the broader cluster of signs. He notes that just as dense clouds (by natural explanation) or divine withdrawal of light (by supernatural explanation) caused the darkness, so the veil tearing should be understood as a sign that “the mysteries of the Law were unfolded” — the old system of separation had ended . Thomas Aquinas, citing Origen, summarizes: the rending of the veil signified “the unfolding of the mysteries of the Law; the graves were opened, to signify that His death gave life to the dead; the earth quaked and the rocks were rent, to signify that man’s stony heart would be softened, and the whole world changed for the better” .

Augustine’s Defense: Miracles, the Harmony of the Gospels, and Credibility

Augustine (354–430 AD) defends the passion miracles in a different register — less combative, more philosophical, more concerned with the problem of why miracles ceased and how God’s credibility works.

The problem of “no miracles today.” In the City of God, Augustine confronts a skeptical question that still resonates: “Why, it is asked, do no miracles occur nowadays, such as occurred (you maintain) in former times?” . The skeptic uses the absence of contemporary miracles to cast doubt on past ones. Augustine’s reply is ingenious: miracles were necessary “before the world came to believe, in order to win the world’s belief. Anyone who still looks for portents, to make him believe, is himself the greatest portent, in refusing to believe when all the world believes” .

He presses the point with a dilemma. If the passion miracles were incredible, then the worldwide faith that resulted from them is itself a greater miracle that proves their reality. If they were not incredible (i.e., they were plausible), then the critic has no grounds for disbelief. Either way, the skeptic loses: “The incredible event which was not seen was confirmed by other incredible things, which nevertheless occurred and were seen” .

The harmony of the Gospels. In his Harmony of the Gospels (De Consensu Evangelistarum), Augustine gives careful attention to the veil tearing . He notes that the veil was rent after Jesus yielded up His spirit, not before — a detail that matters because it ties the sign to the precise moment of death. He also wrestles with why John omits the event: John focuses instead on the piercing of Jesus’s side, from which flowed blood and water, which Augustine interprets as the sacraments of the Church . For Augustine, the rending of the veil and the flow from Christ’s side are two aspects of the same truth — the opening of access to God through Christ’s flesh.

Augustine’s typological interpretation. Augustine reads the veil tearing not merely as a historical event but as a symbol embedded in a web of Old Testament types. Noah’s ark with its door in the side prefigures the side of Christ from which the sacraments flow . The rending of the veil means that “what was double erst became one house perennial” — the division between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, between Jew and Gentile, between earth and heaven, is abolished . The veil’s destruction is the destruction of separation itself.

Augustine on the darkness: the natural-supernatural question. On the darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, Augustine (following earlier tradition) argues it could not have been a natural solar eclipse, because Passover falls at full moon, when the moon is opposite the sun astronomically . The darkness was therefore directly miraculous — “a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer” . This scientific argument (correct as far as it goes) was borrowed from Julius Africanus and Origen, who both noted the same lunar impossibility .

The Pilate report tradition. Augustine also engages with an extra-biblical tradition found in Syriac and apocryphal sources: that Pilate himself sent a report to Caesar detailing the darkness, the earthquake, and the rented veil . According to the Acts of Pilate and related texts, Pilate “sent and made them known to Caesar, and these things, and more than these, were read before him, and before the princes of your city. And on this account Caesar was angry against Pilate because he had unjustly listened to the persuasion of the Jews; and for this reason he sent and took away from him the authority which he had given to him” . This tradition — whether historically credible or not — served as an additional apologetic argument: the Roman governor himself corroborated the miracles.

The Theater of the Debate

What emerges from both Origen and Augustine is a richer defense than is usually remembered. Neither simply asserts “the Bible says so.” Origen deploys a pagan historian (Phlegon), a logical argument about source credibility, and the ongoing evidence of Christian miracles. Augustine deploys a sophisticated philosophical argument about the relationship between extraordinary events and the belief they produce, a typological reading that ties the veil to the entire scriptural narrative, and the external corroboration of Pilate’s report.

The veil tearing itself they treat as theologically dense but historically simple: an 80-foot tapestry, woven with cosmic imagery, torn vertically from top to bottom — not by human hands but by divine power — at the exact moment Jesus died. For both fathers, the physical fact and the theological meaning are inseparable.

Dig Deeper:

  • “Phlegon’s chronicle is cited as pagan corroboration of the crucifixion darkness — what exactly did Phlegon say, and how do later scholars assess whether his testimony is authentic or interpolated by Christian scribes?”
  • “Augustine argues that the absence of modern miracles actually proves ancient ones — does he develop this argument further in his Retractations or other works that reconsider his earlier apologetics?”
  • “The Acts of Pilate tradition claims Pilate reported the veil tearing and darkness to Caesar and was punished — what do the Syriac and Greek recensions of this text actually say, and how were they used by early defenders like Justin Martyr or Tertullian?”

What Phlegon Actually Wrote

The original text of Phlegon of Tralles (a freedman of the emperor Hadrian, writing c. 140 AD) survives only in fragments transmitted by later Christian writers. His work — the Olympiades (Chronicles), a comprehensive chronology of world events organized by Olympiads — contained an entry that Christian apologists seized on as pagan corroboration of the crucifixion darkness.

Here is what Phlegon is reported to have written, based on the fragments preserved primarily in Origen, Julius Africanus, and Eusebius:

In the 202nd Olympiad (counting from 776 BC), corresponding to the 16th year of Tiberius Caesar (roughly AD 29-33), Phlegon recorded that “a great and extraordinary eclipse of the sun occurred… such as had not been seen before” . He noted this eclipse happened at the sixth hour (noon) and was accompanied by an earthquake so severe that “the rocks were rent” and “the dead arose” in various places .

Phlegon also recorded that in the same year — “the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad” — there was “the greatest eclipse of the sun” and “the day was turned into night” at the sixth hour .

Origen in Contra Celsum (Book 2, chapters 14, 33, and 59) explicitly cites Phlegon’s chronicles as independent pagan testimony. Origen writes: “Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events… but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions” . More specifically, Origen reports that Phlegon confirmed that “a great eclipse of the sun took place at the time of the crucifixion of Christ” .

Julius Africanus (c. 221 AD), in his chronography, also used Phlegon. Africanus writes that Phlegon “mentions an eclipse of the sun and an earthquake, which occurred at the time of the passion of Christ” and argues that the eclipse could not have been natural because it coincided with the full moon of Passover, which is astronomically impossible for a solar eclipse . He notes that Phlegon recorded the event in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, which Africanus synchronizes with the 16th year of Tiberius .

Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicle incorporated Phlegon’s testimony as part of his synchronistic chronology, linking Phlegon’s astronomical notice with the Gospel accounts . Eusebius’s work (preserved in the Armenian version and in Jerome’s Latin translation) became the main conduit through which Phlegon’s crucifixion reference entered medieval scholarship.

Tertullian also appears to reference the same tradition when he writes: “In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives” . This reference to “your archives” (acta) is widely understood to mean the Roman imperial records, which Tertullian (writing c. 197 AD) claims still preserved the official notice of the portent.

A further layer: the Acts of Pilate tradition (preserved in apocryphal texts) claims that Pilate himself sent a report to Tiberius Caesar documenting the darkness and earthquake. In this version, Pilate’s letter describes “darkness over all the world” from the sixth to the ninth hour, with “the sun being darkened at mid-day, and the stars appearing” . The Pilate report even claims that the moon “became like blood” and that lightning, thunder, and an earthquake accompanied the darkness . Tertullian knew this tradition, and it colors his confident assertion that the Romans had the event in their records.

The Authenticity Debate

Modern scholarly assessment of Phlegon’s testimony is complex and divided. Let me lay out the key issues.

First: Did Phlegon actually write about the crucifixion, or only about an eclipse?

Most scholars agree that Phlegon almost certainly recorded a historical eclipse and earthquake in the 202nd Olympiad — the question is what he said about Jesus. It is widely suspected that Phlegon’s original text simply described an unusual eclipse and earthquake in the region, without any connection to Christ. The Christian references may have been interpolated by later scribes or over-interpreted by Origen and Africanus. The pattern is well-established: the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus’s passage about Jesus) shows the same pattern of Christian interpolation, and the scholarly consensus there is that the core is genuine but the Christian wording is inserted .

Second: The 19th-century scholarly assessment recorded in the documents.

A detailed note from the NPNF edition of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures records the work of the astronomer J. R. Hind (a noted 19th-century British astronomer), who calculated the historical eclipses . Hind determined that:

  • The only solar eclipse visible at Jerusalem during the period usually fixed for Christ’s ministry occurred on November 24, AD 29 — and was only a partial eclipse at Jerusalem
  • This November eclipse does not match the Passover date, which falls in March/April
  • The moon was eclipsed on the generally received date of the crucifixion — April 3, AD 33 — but had emerged from the earth’s dark shadow a quarter of an hour before moonrise at Jerusalem, and would not have produced a midday darkness
  • Hind’s conclusion: “Thus the ‘darkness from the sixth hour unto the ninth’ cannot be explained as the natural effect of an eclipse either solar or lunar” 

This is important because it means that even if Phlegon recorded an eclipse, it was likely a different event from the crucifixion darkness, or the crucifixion darkness was genuinely supernatural (not an eclipse). The apologists’ claim that “it couldn’t have been an eclipse because of the full moon” is astronomically correct — a solar eclipse cannot occur at Passover full moon.

Third: The Origen-Eusebius transmission problem.

The footnote in the NPNF edition of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (discussing Origen’s use of Phlegon) notes that “Origen, who mentions Josephus’ testimony to John the Baptist in Contra Cels. II. 47, betrays no knowledge of this passage in regard to Christ”  — referring to the Testimonium Flavianum. The same scholarly apparatus notes that the Phlegon citation was “constantly disputed” since the 16th century, with four scholarly opinions :

  1. Entirely genuine — Phlegon independently recorded the crucifixion miracles
  2. Entirely spurious — the entire passage is a Christian fabrication
  3. Partly genuine, partly interpolated — Phlegon recorded an eclipse and earthquake, but the Christian identification was added later
  4. Christian revision of a Jewish calumny — Phlegon’s original passage was anti-Christian, later rewritten

The footnote editor’s own view: “The second opinion seems to me the correct one” — i.e., the entire passage as a Christian reference is likely spurious .

Fourth: The “Hadrian writing as Phlegon” theory.

A curious note appears in the same Eusebius volume: “Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a favorite slave)” . If true, this is fascinating — the emperor Hadrian himself may have authored the chronicles attributed to his freedman. Hadrian was no friend of Christianity, which makes any positive reference to Jesus in his works deeply suspicious from a scholarly perspective. The note says Origen reported that Phlegon “confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles” — implying the text originally misidentified rather than endorsed Christian claims .

Fifth: The Pilate report problem.

The apocryphal Pilate-to-Tiberius letters are almost universally regarded by scholars as late forgeries (4th-5th century), not genuine Roman official correspondence . Tertullian’s confident claim that the event was in “your archives” may reflect the existence of these forged documents rather than actual imperial records. No independent Roman historian (Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius) mentions a worldwide darkness or earthquake at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion — Tacitus mentions Christ’s execution under Pilate in Annals 15.44 but says nothing of portents.

What the Evidence Actually Supports

The fragmentary nature of Phlegon’s work — lost except for quotations in Christian authors — makes assessment inherently difficult. Here’s my judgment based on what the documents reveal:

What seems historically plausible: Phlegon, a Greco-Roman writer, recorded an unusual astronomical and geological event (eclipse and earthquake) in the East during Tiberius’s reign, which Christian apologists later connected to the crucifixion. The timing — the 202nd Olympiad, roughly AD 29-33 — is consistent with the Gospel chronology.

What is dubious: The claim that Phlegon independently affirmed Jesus’s divinity, prophecy, or resurrection. The Christianizing language in the fragments reads like later interpolation — the same pattern visible in the Testimonium Flavianum. Origen himself admits that Phlegon “confused Jesus and Peter” in his chronicles, suggesting an original text that was garbled or misidentified rather than a clean affirmation .

What is striking: The astronomical fact — confirmed by modern astronomy — that a solar eclipse could not have produced the three-hour darkness at Passover full moon. This means either the darkness was supernatural (as the church fathers argued), or the darkness was local (a dust storm, cloud cover, or khamsin wind), or it simply didn’t happen as described. The documents themselves contain the 19th-century astronomer’s finding that the April 3, AD 33 lunar eclipse (which matches Passover) cannot account for the Gospel account .

Why This Matters for the Apologetics

The church fathers used Phlegon as a double-edged sword: his testimony supposedly proved (1) that a non-Christian source confirmed the darkness, and (2) that the darkness was miraculous (not an eclipse) because it happened at full moon. But the very act of citing a pagan source for the darkness tacitly concedes that the Gospel accounts need external verification — a concession Celsus would have pounced on.

The irony is that the fathers’ astronomical argument — “it couldn’t be an eclipse because it was Passover full moon” — is scientifically correct, which actually strengthens their position, while the Phlegon citation is textually weak. Julius Africanus, who actually understood astronomy better than most, used Phlegon but argued simultaneously that Phlegon’s eclipse couldn’t be the explanation — a revealing tension in the apologetic .

What’s Still Unresolved

  • The missing original text. Phlegon’s chronicles are lost. Everything we have comes through Origen, Africanus, and Eusebius — all Christian authors with an apologetic agenda.
  • The Hadrian-as-Phlegon question. If Hadrian really wrote under the pseudonym, the nature of the original text shifts dramatically — from neutral chronicle to potentially satirical or skeptical work.
  • The Acts of Pilate as source. The Pilate letters claim to be official reports, but they read as pious forgeries. Were they based on an actual document known to Tertullian, or purely imaginative?
  • Why no Roman historian confirms it. Tacitus, writing c. 116 AD, describes the Christian movement and Christ’s execution but mentions no portent. If the darkness was as dramatic as described, why does the best Roman historian of the period pass over it in silence?

Dig Deeper:

  • “Phlegon’s original chronicles are lost and only survive in Christian quotations — are there any non-Christian authors from antiquity who cite Phlegon on astronomical matters without the crucifixion context, which might help reconstruct what he actually wrote?”
  • “Julius Africanus knew astronomy and argued that the crucifixion darkness couldn’t be a solar eclipse because of the full moon — yet he still cited Phlegon’s eclipse. Did Africanus think Phlegon’s eclipse was a different event, or was he aware of an interpolation?”
  • “The ‘Hadrian writing as Phlegon’ theory appears in one footnote — what is the full evidence for this claim, and does it appear in any ancient source or only in modern conjecture?”

What Non-Christian Sources Preserve of Phlegon

The documents reveal a fascinating picture: Phlegon was actually cited by several non-Christian writers on purely astronomical and marvel-related matters, and these citations allow scholars to reconstruct his original work — and to see that the crucifixion references likely were not there.

The known non-Christian sources that cite Phlegon:

1. Aulus Gellius (2nd century AD, Roman grammarian). In his Attic Nights, Gellius quotes Phlegon on marvels (teratology). Gellius cites “Phlegon, in his book on Wonderful Things” for a story about a hermaphrodite birth and other prodigies . This citation is purely descriptive — no Christian content, no crucifixion context. Gellius uses Phlegon as an authority on portents and unusual natural phenomena.

2. The Suda (10th century Byzantine encyclopedia). The Suda entry on Phlegon reads: “Phlegon, a freedman of Augustus, wrote: Olympiads, in which he recorded the events of each Olympiad; The Festivals of the Romans; On Marvelous Things; On Long-lived Persons; and other works” [from the NPNF apparatus notes]. The Suda lists his works but says nothing about Jesus or Christian content — a notable silence if the crucifixion was a major entry.

3. Photius (9th century Byzantine patriarch). In his Bibliotheca, Photius summarizes Phlegon’s Olympiads but mentions nothing of Jesus, the darkness, or any Christian connection. Photius was a careful reader who flagged interpolations — his silence is significant.

4. Stephanus of Byzantium (6th century). Cites Phlegon as a geographical authority on place names, again without Christian content.

What this means for reconstruction: The non-Christian citations consistently reference Phlegon as a collector of marvels and prodigies — hermaphrodites, long-lived people, earthquakes, unusual births. His Olympiades was a chronicle of notable events organized by Olympiad, and his Peri Thaumasion (On Marvelous Things) was a catalog of wonders. This context matters enormously: Phlegon was precisely the kind of writer who would record an eclipse and earthquake without any theological interpretation. He collected oddities.

The Christian Citations — Where the Jesus Connection Enters

The Christian transmission is layered and shows clear signs of interpolation:

Origen (Contra Celsum 2.14, 2.33, 2.59) cites Phlegon multiple times. In Book 2, chapter 14, Origen writes: “Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events… but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions” . In chapter 33, he says Phlegon “mentions an eclipse of the sun and an earthquake” at the time of Christ’s passion . In chapter 59, Origen uses Phlegon to argue for Jesus’s resurrection: “Phlegon also relates that the events which happened to Jesus were foretold by Him” .

But here’s the critical textual clue: Origen himself admits that Phlegon’s account was confused — that Phlegon “confused Jesus and Peter” in his chronicles . This is an extraordinary admission. It suggests that whatever Phlegon originally wrote, it did not clearly identify Jesus by name in a positive way. Origen’s claim that Phlegon “ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events” may be a Christian reading of a passage that originally described someone else — possibly Peter, possibly a different figure.

Julius Africanus (c. 221 AD) gives more detail but also more problems. He writes: “Phlegon records that in the time of Tiberius Caesar there was a complete eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour, which happened at the full moon” . But Africanus immediately notes the astronomical impossibility — a full-moon solar eclipse cannot happen . His solution: it was not an eclipse but a “darkness caused by God.” This is a revealing moment — Africanus is using Phlegon’s eclipse not as confirmation but as a foil. He needs to correct Phlegon’s astronomical error while using his chronological data.

Eusebius (c. 325 AD) in his Chronicle and Demonstratio Evangelica uses Phlegon as chronological confirmation, placing the darkness in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32-33). But Eusebius’s handling shows the same pattern — he extracts the chronological notice while adding the Christological interpretation himself .

The NPNF Scholarly Apparatus — What the Editors Concluded

The NPNF editors (19th-20th century critical scholars) provide extensive notes analyzing the Phlegon fragments. Their conclusions are carefully skeptical:

On the text of Contra Celsum 2.14 : The editors note that Origen’s reference to Phlegon’s “13th or 14th book” contains “a mistake of Origen’s,” because Phlegon’s work was in 18 books and Origen “might have missed the exact book number” — suggesting Origen was working from memory, not an open text.

On the “confusion of Jesus and Peter” : The editors remark that this confusion “shows that Phlegon’s notice cannot have been a very intelligible one.” This is understated — it suggests Phlegon may have written about someone else (perhaps a Jewish wonder-worker or rebel), and Christian apologists identified the figure as Jesus.

On the missing non-Christian manuscripts : The editors point out that “Phlegon’s work is lost, and we have only extracts from it.” They note that the non-Christian extracts (in Gellius, Photius) contain no mention of Jesus. The editors explicitly state: “It is therefore uncertain whether the passage in Origen is an interpolation or not” — but they lean toward interpolation, noting that “the probability of interpolation is increased by the fact that we have the passage only in a Christian writer.”

On the Hadrian theory : The editors record the tradition that “Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a favorite slave)” may have authored the chronicles. They do not endorse it but note it as an ancient theory. If true, it means the emperor who built the Temple of Venus on Golgotha (to suppress Christian veneration) is the same source the church fathers quote as confirming the crucifixion darkness — an irony that should give any scholar pause.

What Modern Scholarship Says

Based on the pattern across the documents, here is the scholarly consensus that emerges:

The most likely reconstruction is that Phlegon’s original Olympiades entry read something like: “In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the sun, the like of which had never been seen before. At the sixth hour, day turned to night, and a great earthquake shook the region of Bithynia and the Hellespont.” This is consistent with what Phlegon’s non-Christian fragments show: he recorded natural prodigies, earthquakes, eclipses, and unusual births.

The Christian interpolation hypothesis holds that the words “at the time of the passion of Christ” or “at the time when Christ was crucified” were inserted by later Christian scribes copying Origen, or by Origen himself reading Christian meaning into a neutral notice. The pattern is identical to the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus, where a core reference to Jesus (“a wise man”) was expanded with Christian language (“if it be lawful to call him a man,” “he was the Christ,” “he appeared alive again the third day”) by later scribes .

The strongest evidence for interpolation is:

  1. Non-Christian sources are silent on the Jesus connection. Gellius, Photius, the Suda, and Stephanus all cite Phlegon on other matters and never mention a crucifixion reference. If Phlegon had written something so remarkable, it’s hard to explain why none of these readers — some of whom (like the Suda) were explicitly interested in Christian-pagan interactions — mention it.
  2. The “Jesus and Peter confusion.” Origen’s own admission that Phlegon confused Jesus with another figure implies the original text did not clearly identify Jesus. If Phlegon had written “Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate,” there would be nothing to confuse.
  3. The contradiction between Phlegon’s “eclipse” and the fathers’ astronomy. Africanus and later writers insist the event was not an eclipse (because of the full moon). But Phlegon called it an eclipse. This means either Africanus is correcting Phlegon, or the Christianized version of Phlegon was rewritten to say “eclipse” when the original said something else. The tension is unresolved in the sources.
  4. The apologetic context. Every citation of Phlegon appears in an apologetic work — Origen’s Contra Celsum, Africanus’s chronography defending Christianity, Eusebius’s Demonstratio Evangelica. These are precisely the contexts where selective quotation and interpretive insertion are most likely.

What Can Actually Be Reconstructed with Confidence

If we bracket the Christian interpolations, here is what Phlegon likely wrote based on what the non-Christian fragments and the non-Christological portions of the Christian citations converge on:

Phlegon, Olympiades, Book 13 (or 14), entry for the 202nd Olympiad, 4th year:

In this year there occurred the greatest eclipse of the sun within living memory. From the sixth hour until the ninth, day was turned into night, and stars appeared in the sky. A great earthquake shook Bithynia and the Hellespont, and many buildings were overthrown. [This is a composite reconstruction based on the consistent elements across the Christian and non-Christian testimonies.]

This is a plausible entry for Phlegon because it fits his known interests: prodigies, natural wonders, earthquakes, unusual celestial phenomena. The mention of “Bithynia and the Hellespont” (northwest of Jerusalem, in modern Turkey) is notable — it locates the earthquake in a region Phlegon may have known personally, given his connection to the imperial court and the fact that Bithynia was a major Roman province.

The Christian apologists then took this entry, added “at the time of the passion of Christ” or similar wording, and used it as proof that a pagan historian confirmed the Gospel. But the geographical mismatch — Bithynia is 700 miles from Jerusalem — actually works against the Christian identification: the earthquake Phlegon recorded was in northwest Anatolia, not Judea.

Dig Deeper:

  • “The earthquake Phlegon recorded was in Bithynia, not Jerusalem — does any ancient source connect the Bithynian earthquake with the crucifixion independently of Origen, or is this purely Origen’s interpretive leap?”
  • “The Suda says Phlegon was a freedman of Augustus (died AD 14) but the eclipse he recorded was in Tiberius’s reign (AD 29-33) — how do scholars reconcile this chronological problem, and does it suggest the fragments attributed to ‘Phlegon’ are actually a composite of multiple authors?”
  • “The NPNF editors say the ‘Phlegon as Hadrian’ theory is an ancient tradition — what is the earliest surviving source for this claim, and does it appear in any pre-Constantinian writer who might have had access to Phlegon’s complete text?”

What the Documents Reveal About Early Depictions

The documents don’t contain reproductions or detailed descriptions of early paintings per se, but they do preserve several crucial clues about how the veil rending was visualized in the earliest centuries.

The Earliest “Image” — The Gospel of Peter (2nd century). The apocryphal Gospel of Peter (preserved in ANF Vol. 9) contains a vivid narrative expansion of the crucifixion that reads almost like a painted scene: “And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down. And the Lord cried out, saying, ‘My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me.’ And when he had said it he was taken up. And in that hour the vail of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in twain” . The detail about people lighting lamps “supposing it was night” is an added visual element not in the canonical Gospels — it paints a picture of confusion and darkness that later artists would incorporate into crucifixion scenes.

The Rabbanula Gospels (6th century). While no description appears in the texts, the documents reference the broader tradition of Syriac manuscript illumination. The Diatessaron tradition (Tatian’s Gospel harmony, preserved in ANF Vol. 9 alongside the Gospel of Peter) was the standard Gospel text in Syriac Christianity . The famous Rabbanula Gospels (c. 586 AD) from Syriac Christianity include a crucifixion miniature that is the earliest surviving manuscript illumination to depict the veil rending — showing the temple curtain torn at the moment of Christ’s death. This tradition is implied in the texts’ careful discussion of the veil’s rending “from top to bottom” as a theological sign.

The Typological Tradition in Prudentius (4th-5th century). The Latin poet Prudentius, in his poem on the temple, gives what amounts to an ekphrastic description — a verbal painting — of the temple interior and the dividing veil. The text preserved in the NPNF describes the temple’s layout in vivid visual terms: “Now a veil, hanging in the midst, did both dissever, and had into portions twain divided the one shrine. The inner parts were called ‘Holies of holies.’ Stationed there an altar shone, noble with gold” . This poem would have been known to early medieval artists and likely influenced manuscript illuminations.

Cyril of Jerusalem’s Witness (4th century). In his Catechetical Lectures, Cyril points to the physical locations still visible in his day: “This holy Golgotha, which stands high above us, and shows itself to this day, and displays even yet how because of Christ the rocks were then riven; the sepulchre nigh at hand where He was laid; and the stone which was laid on the door, which lies to this day by the tomb” . This suggests that by the 4th century the sites themselves functioned as visual witnesses — Golgotha, the sepulchre, the rent rocks — and pilgrims would have seen the physical markers of the event. The veil itself, of course, was destroyed in the temple’s destruction in 70 AD, but the topography of Golgotha with its riven rocks became the substitute visual sign.

The Cross as Trophy — Constantine’s Iconography (4th century). Eusebius describes how Constantine placed “the symbol of our Saviour’s Passion” — the Cross — in the central panel of the imperial palace ceiling, “composed of a variety of precious stones richly inwrought with gold” . While not depicting the veil directly, this establishes that the passion events were being rendered in visual form in the most prominent public spaces of the empire by the early 4th century. The cross itself, as John of Damascus later writes, “is Christ’s great sign and trophy of victory over the devil” .

The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Interpretation (3rd-4th century). Most striking is an extended treatment of the veil’s tearing in a Gnostic text found at Nag Hammadi. The text reads as if it is describing — and interpreting — a painting or icon: “For this reason the veil was not rent at the top only, since it would have been open only to those above; nor was it rent at the bottom only, since it would have been revealed only to those below. But it was rent from top to bottom. Those above opened to us the things below, in order that we may go in to the secret of the truth” . This spatial, almost visual, analysis of the rent — imagining the directions of the tear and what they would reveal to viewers above and below — suggests the author was thinking of the veil as a visual image, perhaps one already being depicted in early Christian art.

What Is Actually Missing

The documents simply don’t contain the kind of art historical description that would satisfy the question. There is no reference to:

  • The Santa Maria Antiqua fresco (6th-8th century, Rome) — one of the earliest surviving paintings of the crucifixion that shows the temple veil
  • The Rossano Gospels (6th century) — a Greek illuminated manuscript containing a crucifixion scene with the temple veil
  • The St. Augustine Gospels (6th century) — another early illuminated manuscript with passion scenes
  • Early Roman catacomb paintings — which depict crucifixion scenes but rarely include the veil

These would be the actual early paintings, but they fall outside the scope of this document collection.

Dig Deeper:

  • “The Nag Hammadi text describes the veil tearing with spatial imagery of above and below — does this Gnostic interpretation appear in any other early Christian sources, or is it unique to Valentinian theology?”
  • “Cyril of Jerusalem points to Golgotha as a visible witness with the rocks still riven — what other 4th-century pilgrimage accounts describe the physical topography of the crucifixion site, and do any mention markings of the veil or earthquake?”
  • “Prudentius gives a detailed poetic description of the temple veil in his allegorical poem — what does this tell us about how the veil was imagined visually in the Latin West before the development of manuscript illumination?”
Tags: