![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome. Tcisco 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is written with a strong presumption that the Biblical three hours of darkness did occur. There is very little criticism of this belief. It's strongly biased towards the conservative Christian view Nik42 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nik needs to learn what "bias" means. This article is about eyewitness accounts of people from the time, their writtings, and writings that directly referred to those writings.. How is that bias or presumption of historical certainty? VP1974 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This article's problems with neutrality arise out of its failure to include the views of objective biblical scholars. The first half of the article simply enumerates sources and presents us with a misplaced section on "time reckoning conventions." The second half then launches into an overlarge section on "crucifixion eclipse models." Missing from all of this is scholarship on the sources themselves. The two-sentence section on "Historicity" does not begin to fulfill this need.
Most scholars of the sources in question do not take the synoptic stories of darkness literally. Instead, they understand these stories as references to "one of the cosmic phenomena often associated with the Day of Yahweh in the Old Testament" (Fitzmyer, "The Gospel According to Luke," p. 1517). In other words, the talk about darkness is one of the means by which the Synoptic authors attempt to associate the passion of Jesus with Old Testament prophecies, and shouldn't be taken as observation-based "on-the-spot reporting" by eyewitnesses (P. Benoit, "Passion and Resurrection," as cited by Fitzmyer. On this see also M. Rese, Alttestaemntliche Motive, and the various sources these scholars cite).
Another point: Luke just talks about the sunlight "failing." That's a pretty vague reference. Could cloud cover, for example, account for a failure of sunlight? Who's to know if we don't cite any good scholarship on the Luke passage in question? And Mark and Matthew just mention unspecified darkness, which could mean almost anything. Even if we're going to be naive and take these sources at their word, it is worth noting how vague our earliest sources for this event are. In neglecting to do so, this article puts the cart before the horse.
I vote for discarding much of the material here, redirecting Crucifixion eclipse to Death and resurrection of Jesus (which already has a more abbreviated discussion of the darkness), and editing the discussion there to include a few brief remarks speculation about the "eclipse," and scholarship surrounding the relevant passages in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and any other ancient sources.
ECKnibbs 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
MORE TO THE POINT: I think that this article on "Crucifixion Eclipse" is confusing and probably not well organized. The solar eclipse option is immediately dismissed (which is proper -- after all Passover occurs at a full moon, which CANNOT be the time of a solar eclipse) but the "eclipse" is still associated with the period of darkness, which is also impossible (the association, that is). I may make some editorial changes but the problem is probably larger than I can tackle alone. See the related section of the article "Crucifixion of Christ" Dr. David C. Bossard HMSChallenger 96.245.212.115 ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV flag to the article because it presents the Humphreys / Waddington approach as conclusive, and gives it a lot more space than it deserves. It's just a theory - an interesting and detailed one, but just one of many, nevertheless. There are a large number of experts who suggest that, for instance, 30AD is a far more likely date for the crucifixion. Every date has its passionate believers, and they are all certain that they are correct. There are also a number of problematic elements in the theory - they depend on a highly speculative assumption (and they are not biblical scholars) that the currently accepted text of the Gospel of Luke is the result of scribal error. They have a partial lunar eclipse in the place of the widespread darkness that seems to be assumed by all other sources. It is undue weight to present one theory to such a prominent degree. I ask for comment from a wider variety of editors in order for this to be resolved. -- Rbreen ( talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Egyptians and the Greeks were brilliant astronomers and there are no records that support a 3 hour darkness at that time in that region other than Christian texts. Bearing in mind that the New Testament also records that the graves were opened and many saw resurrected saints (again not recorded elsewhere) this article must reflect the fact that the vast majority of academics do not take this as a record of an actual historical event. Currently this article looks like OR mixed with apologetics. Sophia 22:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
From Rev Dr JD Ward In grave contradiction to the above poster, I would like to add that the "scholars" who are cited as proposing alternative views are widely regarded as occupying the more extreme ends of the liberal spectrum. Funk and the Jesus Seminar do not tend to represent mainstream scholarship, as a cusory glance at most commentaries on the gospels would show. The article does show bias towards the eclipse explanations, but I think it appropriate to refuse the complaints of various atheists who wish to deny the existence either of the gospel accounts, or the helpful citation of the 2nd hand sources (which is historically valid). The above point about a lack of reports from Egyptian and Greek sources is useful, but the writer assumes too much about what "the vast majority of academics" thinks. Futhermore, since when did a reporting of the available facts and opinions ever need to be weighted to what "the vast majority" thinks? Surely the point of Wikipedia is to report on all the views- the conservative and liberal answers to the darkness at noon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.247.238 ( talk) 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the following text out of the article (formerly the first section). Much of this material is irrelevant to the discussion that follows. Perhaps a small portion of these sentences should be reincorporated later, but for now I think it's less confusing to do without them. In any case, the article should open with a discussion of sources.
Recorded descriptions of the crucifixion eclipse were expressed in terms of the Roman time reckoning system. Judea, like many Mediterranean nations, was under the rule of the Roman Empire at the time of the crucifixion, circa 33. Judeans measured time in terms of the Roman twelve divisions of daylight: hours. (Division of the day into 24 hours is attributed to the Egyptians, specifically the reign of Mentuhotep III.) The first hour occurred at sunrise; the twelfth occurred at sunset; noon, the sixth hour, occurred when the sun reached its highest point in the sky; and the ninth hour corresponded to midway between noon and sunset. The length of an hour would vary with the seasons. It could be twenty minutes during the winter and ninety minutes in the summer. It was close to sixty minutes during the crucifixion, which was either Nisan 14 or 15. According to Duncan (1998, p. 48), the Roman soldiers announced the third hour of the morning (tertia hora), the sixth of midday (sexta hora), and the ninth of the afternoon (nona hora). Biblical and extra-biblical records indicate the darkness commenced when the Sun was at zenith, the sixth hour, and radiance resumed when the sun was approximately forty-five degrees above the horizon, the ninth hour.
Witnesses of the crucifixion darkness could distinguish between short and long events. Ancient cultures tracked the passage of time by pointing to specific positions of the sun in the sky (Aveni, 1995, 90-92). The witnesses did not need a sundial or hourglass to know when the sixth and ninth hours had occurred. Praying at three-hour intervals was an old Jewish practice (Richards, 1998, p. 44).
ECKnibbs 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article. The relationship of all of this material to the topic of the article appears to be original research. The only secondary source cited that supports the relationship of sunspots to the Crucifixion eclipse is Bouw, and, as the article admits, what Bouw says is only a "suggestion," offered without "any arguments in support." Reason enough to remove, I think.
Gerardus D. Bouw (1998) had proposed, with skepticism, global sunspots as an explanation for the crucifixion blackout. His deduction was offered as a last resort after comparing other models with the criteria presented by biblical and extra-biblical texts. He did not offer any arguments in support of his suggestion.
The Sun is not the only star to have a record of severe dimming. Other stars with starspots covering over half of their surfaces have been observed. For example, two stars with mega-spots were Lambda Andromedae (Magnetic Field, 1983) and the K0 spectral class giant star XX Triangulum (HD 12545) (Pilachowski, 1999). Vogt, Hatzes, Misch, and Kurster (1997) studied the behavior of the large polar spot on the RS CVn star HR 1099. It had persisted for eleven years. Those celestial objects normally belong to a stellar classification that excluded the Sun.
Seismic triggers During the darkness, an unusual earthquake hit the area. Its shock waves caused rocks to split without collapsing the entire city. The great veil in the temple was split from top to bottom. That phenomenon slightly resembled the snapped off tops of trees that had been caused by the violent concussive ground motions at the epicenter of the Alaskan earthquake of 1964. The tearing mechanism applied against the great curtain was very localized – it did not destroy the temple. The veil of the Temple was “60 feet long, 30 feet high, and about 4 inches thick; composed of 72 squares sewn together; so heavy it required 300 men to lift it” (DeLashmutt, 2005). And, selective graves were uncovered by the peculiar quake (Matthews 27:51-53). All of these occurred during the three hours of darkness.
The peculiar crucifixion earthquake may be an essential product of the solar darkening mechanism. Researchers have found correlations between a set of great earthquakes and the geomagnetic storms that have been caused by solar activity such as sunspots (Mazazarella and Palumbo, 1988; Palumbo, 1989; Shatashvili, Sikharulidze, and Khazaradze, 2000; Mukherjee and Mukherjee, 2002; Mukherjee, 2003; Mukherjee and Körtvélyessy, 2005). Sunspots are regions of the photosphere that have been slightly darkened by very strong magnetic storms.
Animal behavior The unusual behavior of the birds during the solar blackout of June 3, 1239 could be a clue for the nature of the solar darkening mechanism. Wide varieties of animals and plants have displayed their reactions to small variations in the strength and direction of magnetic fields (Winklhofer, 2005; Walker, Dennis, & Kirschvink, 2002; Muheim, 2001; Kirschvink, Walker, & Diebel, 2001; Lohmann, Hester, & Lohmann, 1999). Magnetoreceptors have been identified in the beaks of homing pigeons (Fleissner, et al., 2003). Geomagnetic fluctuations induced by the Sun may have disoriented the birds during the blackout of the third of June. A global magnetic storm on the Sun may have been the darkening mechanism.
Christian eschatological applications According to Lockyear (1961, p. 243) "Such darkening of the Sun was an earnest of 'the great and terrible day of the Lord' ((Joel 2:31, 32)." The Day of the Lord is an eschatological period of wrath that has been described by such biblical passages as Amos 5:18 and Zephaniah 1:14-18 and that was to be ushered in by a solar blackout and lunar reddening (Acts 2:20-21; Revelation 6:12). Heliophysical explanations of the Bouw global sunspots may be applicable to the solar and lunar blackout associated with the second coming of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:29-30; Mark 13:24-26; Luke 21:25-28). But, the Bouw model would have to be modified to explain the lunar red glow associated with the solar blackout described in Joel 2:31; Acts 2:20; and the sixth seal events of the Book of Revelation:
For example, the onset of the global sunspot storm generates heliomagnetic disturbances that trigger earthquakes. As the sunspot storms rapidly reach totality, the emission of visible light by the photosphere would be severely reduced. The strength and structure of the magnetic storms would transform the surface of the photosphere from granular to woven. Hughes, Paczuski, Dendy, Helander, and McClements (2002) had proposed a magnetic carpet as a model of the photospheric magnetic fields. Their computational modeling treated the stability of random distributions of magnetic loops as products of self-organized criticality. A crisscross arrangement of magnetic flux tubes may yield greater stability and strength than a random and/or parallel distribution of bands.
The global solar storm intensifies the density and speed of Solar Energetic Particles (SEP). SEP bombardment of the Moon would cause its surface to luminesce in red. Kopal and Rackham (1963) and Sekiguchi (1977) have recorded red, wide area lunar luminescences. They were too weak to be seen by the naked eye, but could serve as a precedent for the Moon glowing deep red during the sixth seal solar blackout. Kopal's and Rackham's work, like other astronomers, examined the luminescence role of solar activity. Lunar luminescence is one of the mechanisms of lunar transient phenomena. Transient lunar phenomenon went from fringe science to mainstream in 1963 (Greenacre 1963; Ley 1965; Cameron 1978).
Several observations have recorded the emission of coronal mass ejections in the absence of solar flares (Reames, 1995a, 1995b, & Reames, Tylka & Ng, 2001). Bright solar flares have not been the sole source of CME’s. Subsequently, the darkened Sun of Revelation 6:12 will be able to produce an intensified SEP flux.
Totality will be long enough for global populations to seek shelter beneath cliffs and within underground dens (Revelation 6:15). Causes for the world wide migrations and physical phenomena described by Revelation 6:12-15 can be explained by heliophysical applications of Bouw's global sunspot model.
The explanations may seem to be farfetched, but the seismic disruptions and red irradiance of the Moon are consistent with Heliophysical phenomena. Irregular variable stars and mega starspots are an established reality. These can promote an understanding of the mechanisms that had caused past and prophesied solar blackouts. And, the Bouw model is consistent with the pre-tribulation and premillenial theology within Christian eschatology.
ECKnibbs 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for yet another post, but it is also worth considering whether the title of this article is appropriate. Despite the reference to "eclipse" in the title, most of the material that the article cites seems devoted to explaining that an eclipse cannot have been the cause of the darkness.
If the term "Crucifixion eclipse" were a commonly used terminus technicus to describe the darkness associated with Jesus' crucifixion, then it might be justified. But in fact I can find no evidence that this is so. A Google search for the term "Crucifixion eclipse," minus "Wikipedia," turns up only a little over 50 hits. Among these are two or three articles by astronomers and one or two devotional websites; the rest appear to be from Wikipedia mirror sites, and references to this article.
ECKnibbs 04:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This section is all based upon a monograph by someone named Dodd, available online at a Christian website. In the first place, I have looked at this source and on p. 103 (the cited page) I can find no reference to asteroids striking the earth or anything remotely related. Even if that material is buried in this text somewhere, I submit that the "Sudden noon sunset" is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources (as per WP:Reliable sources). Dodd's monograph appears not to be a reliable source in the first place.
ECKnibbs 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've taken it out. Here's the removed text, for reference:
Dodds (2003, p. 103) tried to explain the crucifixion blackout in terms of the Sun rapidly dropping beneath the horizon. He asserted a collision with an asteroid caused the axis of the Earth to temporarily tilt. The strength of his argument stemmed from an explanation by Flavio Barbiero for the disaster at the end of the Pleistocene era (Dodds). Barbiero’s analyses were based on a twenty degree shift in the rotational axis. But, a shift of ninety degrees would have been necessary for the crucifixion darkness. The Sun would have to be concealed by the horizon to provide the described level of darkness. The tilt would have had to rapidly transpire. Neither biblical nor extra-biblical accounts had described sharp movements of the Sun. A ninety degree precession in the Earth’s axis, transpiring within seconds, would have caused global floods, tremendous wind shears, and gigantic scaring by the heat of friction. Neither geophysical evidence nor historical records support this model.
ECKnibbs 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The list of eclipses and corresponding durations were cited by other papers relevant to this topic. I will cite the sources later in the day. Tcisco 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Simply False. It did not happened. Why? The jewish calendar is moon base being the first of the month a new moon. During this time is when you see partial or total solar eclipse. This happened during the 1st day of passover, that is Nissan 15 or 14 depending on how the month start is calculated. Back in those days it would have been determined by the Sanhedrin that was still up and running. That means that was about the 14 but at anyrate was a full moon. That means the moon was behind the Earth. Or if you prefer the Earth was between the Sun and the Moon. Meaning a moon eclipse and not a Sun eclipse was possible. So at least we are sure it was not a solar eclipse. Maybe something else. 76.108.151.217 ( talk) 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT WAS A SOLAR ECLIPSE AT THE DAY OF CRUCIFIXION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT FULLMOON. THE SOLAR ECLIPSE HAPPENS ONLY AT THE DAY OF NEW MOON. THIS ERROR OF EVALUATION IS CAUSED BY MECHANICAL TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK WORDS "TOU ELIOU EKLIPONTOS". FROM THE GREEK VERB "EKLEIPO" IS THE WORD ECLIPSE. BUT THESE WORDS DON'T DENOTE ONLY THE ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENON OF ECLIPSE, BUT ANY EFFECT OF DARKNESS. FOR EXAMPLE THE NIMBOSTRATUS PRODUCES DARKNESS SIMILAR TO THESE OF ECLIPSE AND ITS DURATION MAY BE OF MANY HOURS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.235.22 ( talk • contribs) I'm not an expert on the Christain bible, seeing as I am Jewish, and I'm certaily not an expert on Greek, but I agree that there couldn't have been an eclipse when there was a full moon. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The following text was removed:
The following scripture about a cloudless day solar darkening commencing at noon was recorded during the reign of Uzziah of Judah, several centuries before the crucifixion eclipse accounts: [1]
Walvoord has argued that the following scripture would be a sign preceding the great and dreadful Day of the Lord: [2]
:The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come (Joel 2:31).'
Jeffrey indicated the solar darkening predicted in Revelation 6:12 will be caused by an act of God like the blackout that had accompanied the crucifixion. [3] Lockyer connected Joel 2:31 and the crucifixion darkness with an aspect of Christian eschatology through the statement: "Such darkening of the sun was an earnest of 'the great and terrible day of the Lord'." [4]
I see there was discussion above about moving this to Crucifixion darkness, since it contains several arguments, all apparently sound, that this cannot have benn an eclipse. Is there objection to such a move now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made a number of changes to this article, all fully supported by citations from scholarly works or original texts.
1. I have reverted the deletion of some changes to the reference to the prophecy of Amos. I have extended the quotation to show all the details referred to as taking place in one day, and clarified that it refers to the sun setting at midday, not just 'solar darkening that would commence at noon' (ie the sun actually moving as opposed to being blanked out, say). It is now clearer that the quotation refers primarily to an earthquake (this is supported by the citation from Brettler), along with citation of the reference in the Book of Amos and the later Book of Zechariah, both of which claim that the prophecy was fulfilled two years later (also supported by citation from Brettler book).
2. I have added a clarification from a Cambridge University Press book that it is not clear that Thallos himself referred to the crucifixion.
3. I have also expanded and clarified the reference to Tertullian (and added a citation to the original text). The original purpose of this reference was obscure, since Tertullian was not an eyewitness and did not in the previous text of this section refer to any sources (and would presumably be using the Gospel accounts as his source). I assume the reference to a 'tertiary source' here is his assumption that there must be a reference to this in the Roman archives. Tertullian makes similar claims in other places but as some of them appear to be completely fanciful (eg a discussion of the case of Jesus before the Roman senate) most scholars appear not to take these references seriously. -- Rbreen ( talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The section 'similar darkness records' is highly misleading:
The book cited supports very little of this and in fact shows a very different picture.
1. Most of the accounts of the eclipse of 3 June 1239 give no specific duration.
2. The Coimbra account does not state that it took place on Good Friday (which fell in that year on 25 March). It only says that the event took place on a Friday.
3. The Toledo account gives no duration, it says 'lasted for a while between the 6th and 9th hours'; as the author of the Book cited observes, this does not necessarily imply totality.
4. The three hours described by the Coimbra account is described by the author as 'extreme' and he expresses the belief that it 'may well have been inspired by the Passion narrative'.
5. The author makes clear that the language used in the descriptions of that era is ambiguous and therefore unreliable.
6. The only precise account given of the phase of totality is that of an observer in Arezzo, Italy, who states: "I saw the Sun entirely covered for the space of time in which a man could walk fully 250 paces". (estimated at about 5-6 minutes)
In other words, there is nothing about this evidence to indicate that it was anything other than a normal total solar eclipse. As such, it has no relevance to this article, and I am removing it. -- Rbreen ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten this section extensively, to reflect what modern astronomers [Stephenson (1997) and Sawyer (1972)] have to say about these accounts. I have quoted both sources in detail. I have also removed the reference to the 1239 eclipse taking place on Good Friday since the original source did not state this, and as another editor has also pointed out, Good Friday cannot possibly fall in June. -- Rbreen ( talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The book Matthew has ONLY 549 pages. But there is a reference to it added by RBreen that says it has a fact on page 623. Nice going ... Please delete and correct. History2007 ( talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Leads are a specialty of mine. I've reorged this one and added a lot of cited material.
A specific reference to a particular date doesn't belong in the lead unless it has some sort of currency. In point of fact, historians don't credit the account of darkness in the first place, so figuring out when the moon might have been "as blood" or whatever is just beside the point. An ahistorical account doesn't help you answer a historical question.
This article (and lead) could use more about the darkness as a part of Christian belief and less about astronomers tooling around with math and numbers. Leadwind ( talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead now has the statement:
Is this what all the historical research has suggested? Before I start researching this further, does anyone have any info to the contrary? The statement just has one reference to support it and the assertion seems overly general, in a first reading. Ideas will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 12:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being called someone who likes to "tool with numbers", I should point out that the general use of the word
chronology has two separate components:
The fact that the distances may be neat 3 hour intervals is a totally separate issue from the order in which the events took place. And the use of the word chronology in general has to rely more on the temporal order than the metric distance.
It would be a fun exercise to represent the events in terms of a formal logic system, but that would not help the Wikipedia article, for it would be original research.
Next, do you have a solid reference that uses the word concocted"? The lead just mentions one reference. Are there really zero references to support Mark?
So my real question still remains, has anyone else here looked at these issues in detail, before I spend the next month researching it again? I looked up Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible and it does not help the case for Mark that much, but Alan Cole's book The Gospel according to Mark seems more favorable but is less historical overall. So more research is needed.
Thanks History2007 ( talk) 19:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the title gives a strong implication that the event (if it occurred at all) was a solar eclipse, which none of the descriptions bear out -- not the Biblical ones, or the nonbiblical ones. It sounds *exactly* like standard ancient descriptions of seismic (earthquake & earthquake-accompanied volcanic) events, and *none* of the details (date, accompanying earthquake, duration, weird sky colorations) fit an eclipse. Vultur ( talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The comment above regarding title NPOV brings about the issue of article focus. The way I see it:
The section in the Crucifixion of Jesus article has the title "Darkness and eclipse" and discusses darkness and a lunar eclipse. My first idea of the title and structure therefore is to have the title "darkness and eclipse" or "darkness and red moon". The term "sky phenomena" does not really work. The earthquake is probably not in the scope of this article. However, the key issues to be addressed in the article need to be:
The two issues of sky darkness and red moon need to be in the same article because they are both "sky events" and unusual phenomena reported in the Gospels. And teh outline above may just become the structure that is needed anyway. Comments will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
History2007 mentions '..as in Apostle Peter's reference to a "moon of blood" in Acts 2:20'. That needs care. Firstly this is not Peter's saying, but rather his quoting a lengthy and apocalyptic passage from the Old Testament prophet Joel. Is there any evidence that Peter applied a literalist interpretation to that Joel passage? From the context of the wider Acts passage (say Acts 2:14-24) it seems doubtful that Peter was interpreting each and every element to have had a literally-interpreted fulfilment in the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost sequence.
Taking the entirety of the Joel quotation (Acts 2:17-21), it seems evident that Peter is primarily addressing the Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit, not the crucifixion (although he will later turn to that after his "now let's wind the clock back" at v22). By the way for his Jewish audience, steeped in a deep reverence of the Hebrew scriptures, his whole address (Acts 2:14-36) is a masterpiece of oratory. So I'm reverting the particular recent edit (image caption) that seems to be off the mark. But I'm happy with your other changes, History2007. Thanks.
Feline Hymnic ( talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commentators are divided upon whether Peter was claiming that all the quoted prophecy from Joel had recently been fulfilled (e.g. Neil21) or whether the words refer to the future. We will investigate the former interpretation further, demonstrate that 'the moon turned to blood' probably refers to a lunar eclipse, and show that this interpretation is self consistent and enables the crucifixion to be dated precisely.
Spot on! We agree. Reliable, high-quality references for "the land of reference". Glad you found one. Thanks. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A lunar eclipse, whether it was visible from jerusalem (or the western world) or not, seems plausible to me. However the idea that it must have occurred on a friday (as Humphreys and Waddington apparently assumed) is totally unwarrented. the 15th of the first month is always a sabbath regardless of what day of the week it was. http://holtz.org/Library/Social%20Science/History/Metals%20Age/Dating%20Jesus%20Death%20by%20Lunar%20Eclipse.htm if the link doesnt work replace the %20's with spaces. just-emery ( talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Greek term used in Mat 27:62, Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:14, 19:31 and 19:42 for the day of crucifixion is paraskeve or preparation day. The word paraskeve always means the day before the seventh-day Sabbath and never the day preceding a non-seventh-day festival sabbath. The term is understood as interchangeable with Friday. Even today some languages even use a form of Paraskeve as their term for Friday. All serious scholars agree that the crucifixion fell on a Friday. Colin J. Humphreys & W. G. Waddington go over all this in their December 1983 article in Nature. They conclude: "Thus some scholars believe that all four gospels place the Crucifixion on Friday, 14 Nisan and others believe that, according to the Synoptics, it occurred on Friday, 15 Nisan. For generality, we assume at this stage that both dates are possible and set out to determine in which of the years AD 26-36 the 14th and 15th Nisan fell on a Friday." The debate is about whether the crucifixion was on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, not whether it was on a Friday. Toroid ( talk) 05:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a message that Xandar left for me, when I asked his opinion (he knows much more theology).
Based on that I think the intro needs to be reworked. I will do so in a day or two. History2007 ( talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The use of "File:Lunar eclipse March 2007.jpg" in the lead is definitely WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also, the lead needs to be edited for NPOV. 75.15.200.172 ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Darkness from the 6th hour could simply be sunset. Then his death at the 9th hour would be at midnight, the same time the angel of death went throughout Egypt exodus 12 :29 ˄ Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I always assumed that the passage referred to a sandstorm, which could have blocked out the sun, exposed remains at cemeteries, rent (or at least parted) the Temple curtain, and perhaps would involve such turbulence, force, and noise as to deserve the description provided. Doesn't any published source adopt this seemingly straightforward interpretation? Wnt ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is still way too biased towards the highly questionable (to be generous) eclipse explanation. There is hardly any mention of seismic (earthquake+volcano) explanations, despite the sources and discussion last year in the 'title and structure' and 'title not NPOV' section of the talk page; the account fits extremely closely with ancient descriptions of seismic events, and does not really have anything in common with an eclipse besides "darkness during daytime". (A lunar eclipse even gets thrown in to explain the bloody-moon stuff, despite a discolored moon being a *clear* result of stuff in the atmosphere (clouds/ash/whatever)!)
Obviously the eclipse needs to be *in* the article, because tons of sources talk about it (despite its total unsuitability to the actual description of the 'Crucifixion darkness event'!), but it should not dominate it.
This sentence is especially problematic: "The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used an argument against its historicity." Because this long length of time is only a problem if you assume a priori it was an eclipse - an atmospheric explanation (volcanic ash, or " earthquake weather", which whatever its scientific basis is undoubtedly a fixture in ancient descriptions of earthquakes - Ammianus Marcellinus' description of the 365 Crete earthquake includes heavy thunderstorms, and I believe Herodotus also mentions storm-weather with earthquakes; plus the other Biblical descriptions which tie together atmospheric and seismic events: Rev 6:12-14, Amos 8:8-9) would quite naturally last hours. There isn't an easy way to fix it, either; because this is something that has indeed been reputably argued (so should be in the article) but is totally nonsensical (and is thus hard to put in in a NPOV way). Perhaps "The length of time the event is supposed to have lasted is exceptionally unusual for an eclipse; this has been used as an argument against its historicity" - this wording avoids our seeming to buy into the nonsensical presumption that the event must have been either fictional or an eclipse. Vultur ( talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The citation states that 20% of the moon was within the umbra. Later the texts talks about the "20% visible". Should it be "invisible" in stead? Fomalhaut76 ( talk) 12:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The section "Similar accounts of darkness" begins as follows:
The same phenomena and portents of the sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead have been reported by multiple ancient writers for the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC.
Since this text has been in place for almost two years, I don't want to remove it without prior notice, as that might seem disruptive. The problem with this statement is that it is backed up with a reference to a blog on a site dedicated to promoting a fringe theory about the origin of the Gospels. The author of the blog works entirely within the framework of this theory. There is no evidence of any form of editorial oversight of the type expected for reliable sources per WP:RS. Therefore, if no convincing counter-arguments are given and/or no good alternative source is provided to justify this contention, I will proceed to remove the entire sentence. Iblardi ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PiCo ( talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just for reference, I'm pasting the GA criteria here (I have no previous connection with this article or with the article's GAR process). The bold is the individual GA criteria and the bullet-point text is my comment; where I agreethat the article meets the criteria, I simply repeat the description of the criterion.
- tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and - have suitable captions. PiCo ( talk) 02:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the review going to be done? No comments in over a month? Wizardman 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk ·
contribs)
15:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator:
Rbreen
I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell ( talk) 13:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This article needs some work to improve the prose and consistency of formatting, but it's basically a strong GA contender. The sources you use are top-notch. I believe the organization is appropriate. I also think the length is appropriate. Here are some issues I have identified.
Resolved issues
|
---|
:A good point, I have fixed this, although not sure readers will spot that there are 2 links, not one.
:There are two versions of the Greek text. One says the sun was darkened, the other says eclipsed. The scholarly view (and the NRSV seems to be the preferred scholarly translation) is that the 'eclipsed' version is probably correct, with the other text versions having been changed to bring it into conformity with the other synoptics, and because it was known that such a phenomenon was impossible. Yes, Loader does specifically say that Luke explains it as an eclipse.
:I agree. Removed.
:Ouch! Yes, didn't see that. Fixed it.
:Please fix anything you can; I have been working my way through the references but it's not an area I am knowledgeable about.
|
I'm putting the nomination on hold. If these issues are addressed in a timely manner, I believe this article will pass all our GA criteria. – Quadell ( talk) 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This article now fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote this candidate. – Quadell ( talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article has historically used the "AD" system, but there has been a significant rewrite the last few months. The era notation was removed (e.g. 70 AD becoming 70) and then added back with a different system (e.g. 70 becoming 70 CE). It seems that per WP:ERA we should discuss the system here and gain consensus. Personally, since the subject matter is entirely New Testament-related, I would be in favour of AD notation. St Anselm ( talk) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
I put "not in source" template to this sentence. ..... Fitzmyer compares the event to a contemporary description recorded in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, [5] which recounts "unlawful acts against the gods, from which we believe the very sun turned away, as if it too were loath to look upon the foul deed". [6] Such sentence is not in the source given, neither anything with similar meaning in source. -- 89.176.48.220 ( talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The article says that the Gospel of John says that the crucifixion took place on Passover, citing William Barclay's book (which I don't have). John 19:14 says that it was Preparation Day of Passover Week, however. Dwschulze ( talk) 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome. Tcisco 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is written with a strong presumption that the Biblical three hours of darkness did occur. There is very little criticism of this belief. It's strongly biased towards the conservative Christian view Nik42 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nik needs to learn what "bias" means. This article is about eyewitness accounts of people from the time, their writtings, and writings that directly referred to those writings.. How is that bias or presumption of historical certainty? VP1974 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This article's problems with neutrality arise out of its failure to include the views of objective biblical scholars. The first half of the article simply enumerates sources and presents us with a misplaced section on "time reckoning conventions." The second half then launches into an overlarge section on "crucifixion eclipse models." Missing from all of this is scholarship on the sources themselves. The two-sentence section on "Historicity" does not begin to fulfill this need.
Most scholars of the sources in question do not take the synoptic stories of darkness literally. Instead, they understand these stories as references to "one of the cosmic phenomena often associated with the Day of Yahweh in the Old Testament" (Fitzmyer, "The Gospel According to Luke," p. 1517). In other words, the talk about darkness is one of the means by which the Synoptic authors attempt to associate the passion of Jesus with Old Testament prophecies, and shouldn't be taken as observation-based "on-the-spot reporting" by eyewitnesses (P. Benoit, "Passion and Resurrection," as cited by Fitzmyer. On this see also M. Rese, Alttestaemntliche Motive, and the various sources these scholars cite).
Another point: Luke just talks about the sunlight "failing." That's a pretty vague reference. Could cloud cover, for example, account for a failure of sunlight? Who's to know if we don't cite any good scholarship on the Luke passage in question? And Mark and Matthew just mention unspecified darkness, which could mean almost anything. Even if we're going to be naive and take these sources at their word, it is worth noting how vague our earliest sources for this event are. In neglecting to do so, this article puts the cart before the horse.
I vote for discarding much of the material here, redirecting Crucifixion eclipse to Death and resurrection of Jesus (which already has a more abbreviated discussion of the darkness), and editing the discussion there to include a few brief remarks speculation about the "eclipse," and scholarship surrounding the relevant passages in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and any other ancient sources.
ECKnibbs 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
MORE TO THE POINT: I think that this article on "Crucifixion Eclipse" is confusing and probably not well organized. The solar eclipse option is immediately dismissed (which is proper -- after all Passover occurs at a full moon, which CANNOT be the time of a solar eclipse) but the "eclipse" is still associated with the period of darkness, which is also impossible (the association, that is). I may make some editorial changes but the problem is probably larger than I can tackle alone. See the related section of the article "Crucifixion of Christ" Dr. David C. Bossard HMSChallenger 96.245.212.115 ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV flag to the article because it presents the Humphreys / Waddington approach as conclusive, and gives it a lot more space than it deserves. It's just a theory - an interesting and detailed one, but just one of many, nevertheless. There are a large number of experts who suggest that, for instance, 30AD is a far more likely date for the crucifixion. Every date has its passionate believers, and they are all certain that they are correct. There are also a number of problematic elements in the theory - they depend on a highly speculative assumption (and they are not biblical scholars) that the currently accepted text of the Gospel of Luke is the result of scribal error. They have a partial lunar eclipse in the place of the widespread darkness that seems to be assumed by all other sources. It is undue weight to present one theory to such a prominent degree. I ask for comment from a wider variety of editors in order for this to be resolved. -- Rbreen ( talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Egyptians and the Greeks were brilliant astronomers and there are no records that support a 3 hour darkness at that time in that region other than Christian texts. Bearing in mind that the New Testament also records that the graves were opened and many saw resurrected saints (again not recorded elsewhere) this article must reflect the fact that the vast majority of academics do not take this as a record of an actual historical event. Currently this article looks like OR mixed with apologetics. Sophia 22:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
From Rev Dr JD Ward In grave contradiction to the above poster, I would like to add that the "scholars" who are cited as proposing alternative views are widely regarded as occupying the more extreme ends of the liberal spectrum. Funk and the Jesus Seminar do not tend to represent mainstream scholarship, as a cusory glance at most commentaries on the gospels would show. The article does show bias towards the eclipse explanations, but I think it appropriate to refuse the complaints of various atheists who wish to deny the existence either of the gospel accounts, or the helpful citation of the 2nd hand sources (which is historically valid). The above point about a lack of reports from Egyptian and Greek sources is useful, but the writer assumes too much about what "the vast majority of academics" thinks. Futhermore, since when did a reporting of the available facts and opinions ever need to be weighted to what "the vast majority" thinks? Surely the point of Wikipedia is to report on all the views- the conservative and liberal answers to the darkness at noon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.247.238 ( talk) 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the following text out of the article (formerly the first section). Much of this material is irrelevant to the discussion that follows. Perhaps a small portion of these sentences should be reincorporated later, but for now I think it's less confusing to do without them. In any case, the article should open with a discussion of sources.
Recorded descriptions of the crucifixion eclipse were expressed in terms of the Roman time reckoning system. Judea, like many Mediterranean nations, was under the rule of the Roman Empire at the time of the crucifixion, circa 33. Judeans measured time in terms of the Roman twelve divisions of daylight: hours. (Division of the day into 24 hours is attributed to the Egyptians, specifically the reign of Mentuhotep III.) The first hour occurred at sunrise; the twelfth occurred at sunset; noon, the sixth hour, occurred when the sun reached its highest point in the sky; and the ninth hour corresponded to midway between noon and sunset. The length of an hour would vary with the seasons. It could be twenty minutes during the winter and ninety minutes in the summer. It was close to sixty minutes during the crucifixion, which was either Nisan 14 or 15. According to Duncan (1998, p. 48), the Roman soldiers announced the third hour of the morning (tertia hora), the sixth of midday (sexta hora), and the ninth of the afternoon (nona hora). Biblical and extra-biblical records indicate the darkness commenced when the Sun was at zenith, the sixth hour, and radiance resumed when the sun was approximately forty-five degrees above the horizon, the ninth hour.
Witnesses of the crucifixion darkness could distinguish between short and long events. Ancient cultures tracked the passage of time by pointing to specific positions of the sun in the sky (Aveni, 1995, 90-92). The witnesses did not need a sundial or hourglass to know when the sixth and ninth hours had occurred. Praying at three-hour intervals was an old Jewish practice (Richards, 1998, p. 44).
ECKnibbs 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article. The relationship of all of this material to the topic of the article appears to be original research. The only secondary source cited that supports the relationship of sunspots to the Crucifixion eclipse is Bouw, and, as the article admits, what Bouw says is only a "suggestion," offered without "any arguments in support." Reason enough to remove, I think.
Gerardus D. Bouw (1998) had proposed, with skepticism, global sunspots as an explanation for the crucifixion blackout. His deduction was offered as a last resort after comparing other models with the criteria presented by biblical and extra-biblical texts. He did not offer any arguments in support of his suggestion.
The Sun is not the only star to have a record of severe dimming. Other stars with starspots covering over half of their surfaces have been observed. For example, two stars with mega-spots were Lambda Andromedae (Magnetic Field, 1983) and the K0 spectral class giant star XX Triangulum (HD 12545) (Pilachowski, 1999). Vogt, Hatzes, Misch, and Kurster (1997) studied the behavior of the large polar spot on the RS CVn star HR 1099. It had persisted for eleven years. Those celestial objects normally belong to a stellar classification that excluded the Sun.
Seismic triggers During the darkness, an unusual earthquake hit the area. Its shock waves caused rocks to split without collapsing the entire city. The great veil in the temple was split from top to bottom. That phenomenon slightly resembled the snapped off tops of trees that had been caused by the violent concussive ground motions at the epicenter of the Alaskan earthquake of 1964. The tearing mechanism applied against the great curtain was very localized – it did not destroy the temple. The veil of the Temple was “60 feet long, 30 feet high, and about 4 inches thick; composed of 72 squares sewn together; so heavy it required 300 men to lift it” (DeLashmutt, 2005). And, selective graves were uncovered by the peculiar quake (Matthews 27:51-53). All of these occurred during the three hours of darkness.
The peculiar crucifixion earthquake may be an essential product of the solar darkening mechanism. Researchers have found correlations between a set of great earthquakes and the geomagnetic storms that have been caused by solar activity such as sunspots (Mazazarella and Palumbo, 1988; Palumbo, 1989; Shatashvili, Sikharulidze, and Khazaradze, 2000; Mukherjee and Mukherjee, 2002; Mukherjee, 2003; Mukherjee and Körtvélyessy, 2005). Sunspots are regions of the photosphere that have been slightly darkened by very strong magnetic storms.
Animal behavior The unusual behavior of the birds during the solar blackout of June 3, 1239 could be a clue for the nature of the solar darkening mechanism. Wide varieties of animals and plants have displayed their reactions to small variations in the strength and direction of magnetic fields (Winklhofer, 2005; Walker, Dennis, & Kirschvink, 2002; Muheim, 2001; Kirschvink, Walker, & Diebel, 2001; Lohmann, Hester, & Lohmann, 1999). Magnetoreceptors have been identified in the beaks of homing pigeons (Fleissner, et al., 2003). Geomagnetic fluctuations induced by the Sun may have disoriented the birds during the blackout of the third of June. A global magnetic storm on the Sun may have been the darkening mechanism.
Christian eschatological applications According to Lockyear (1961, p. 243) "Such darkening of the Sun was an earnest of 'the great and terrible day of the Lord' ((Joel 2:31, 32)." The Day of the Lord is an eschatological period of wrath that has been described by such biblical passages as Amos 5:18 and Zephaniah 1:14-18 and that was to be ushered in by a solar blackout and lunar reddening (Acts 2:20-21; Revelation 6:12). Heliophysical explanations of the Bouw global sunspots may be applicable to the solar and lunar blackout associated with the second coming of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:29-30; Mark 13:24-26; Luke 21:25-28). But, the Bouw model would have to be modified to explain the lunar red glow associated with the solar blackout described in Joel 2:31; Acts 2:20; and the sixth seal events of the Book of Revelation:
For example, the onset of the global sunspot storm generates heliomagnetic disturbances that trigger earthquakes. As the sunspot storms rapidly reach totality, the emission of visible light by the photosphere would be severely reduced. The strength and structure of the magnetic storms would transform the surface of the photosphere from granular to woven. Hughes, Paczuski, Dendy, Helander, and McClements (2002) had proposed a magnetic carpet as a model of the photospheric magnetic fields. Their computational modeling treated the stability of random distributions of magnetic loops as products of self-organized criticality. A crisscross arrangement of magnetic flux tubes may yield greater stability and strength than a random and/or parallel distribution of bands.
The global solar storm intensifies the density and speed of Solar Energetic Particles (SEP). SEP bombardment of the Moon would cause its surface to luminesce in red. Kopal and Rackham (1963) and Sekiguchi (1977) have recorded red, wide area lunar luminescences. They were too weak to be seen by the naked eye, but could serve as a precedent for the Moon glowing deep red during the sixth seal solar blackout. Kopal's and Rackham's work, like other astronomers, examined the luminescence role of solar activity. Lunar luminescence is one of the mechanisms of lunar transient phenomena. Transient lunar phenomenon went from fringe science to mainstream in 1963 (Greenacre 1963; Ley 1965; Cameron 1978).
Several observations have recorded the emission of coronal mass ejections in the absence of solar flares (Reames, 1995a, 1995b, & Reames, Tylka & Ng, 2001). Bright solar flares have not been the sole source of CME’s. Subsequently, the darkened Sun of Revelation 6:12 will be able to produce an intensified SEP flux.
Totality will be long enough for global populations to seek shelter beneath cliffs and within underground dens (Revelation 6:15). Causes for the world wide migrations and physical phenomena described by Revelation 6:12-15 can be explained by heliophysical applications of Bouw's global sunspot model.
The explanations may seem to be farfetched, but the seismic disruptions and red irradiance of the Moon are consistent with Heliophysical phenomena. Irregular variable stars and mega starspots are an established reality. These can promote an understanding of the mechanisms that had caused past and prophesied solar blackouts. And, the Bouw model is consistent with the pre-tribulation and premillenial theology within Christian eschatology.
ECKnibbs 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for yet another post, but it is also worth considering whether the title of this article is appropriate. Despite the reference to "eclipse" in the title, most of the material that the article cites seems devoted to explaining that an eclipse cannot have been the cause of the darkness.
If the term "Crucifixion eclipse" were a commonly used terminus technicus to describe the darkness associated with Jesus' crucifixion, then it might be justified. But in fact I can find no evidence that this is so. A Google search for the term "Crucifixion eclipse," minus "Wikipedia," turns up only a little over 50 hits. Among these are two or three articles by astronomers and one or two devotional websites; the rest appear to be from Wikipedia mirror sites, and references to this article.
ECKnibbs 04:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This section is all based upon a monograph by someone named Dodd, available online at a Christian website. In the first place, I have looked at this source and on p. 103 (the cited page) I can find no reference to asteroids striking the earth or anything remotely related. Even if that material is buried in this text somewhere, I submit that the "Sudden noon sunset" is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources (as per WP:Reliable sources). Dodd's monograph appears not to be a reliable source in the first place.
ECKnibbs 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've taken it out. Here's the removed text, for reference:
Dodds (2003, p. 103) tried to explain the crucifixion blackout in terms of the Sun rapidly dropping beneath the horizon. He asserted a collision with an asteroid caused the axis of the Earth to temporarily tilt. The strength of his argument stemmed from an explanation by Flavio Barbiero for the disaster at the end of the Pleistocene era (Dodds). Barbiero’s analyses were based on a twenty degree shift in the rotational axis. But, a shift of ninety degrees would have been necessary for the crucifixion darkness. The Sun would have to be concealed by the horizon to provide the described level of darkness. The tilt would have had to rapidly transpire. Neither biblical nor extra-biblical accounts had described sharp movements of the Sun. A ninety degree precession in the Earth’s axis, transpiring within seconds, would have caused global floods, tremendous wind shears, and gigantic scaring by the heat of friction. Neither geophysical evidence nor historical records support this model.
ECKnibbs 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The list of eclipses and corresponding durations were cited by other papers relevant to this topic. I will cite the sources later in the day. Tcisco 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Simply False. It did not happened. Why? The jewish calendar is moon base being the first of the month a new moon. During this time is when you see partial or total solar eclipse. This happened during the 1st day of passover, that is Nissan 15 or 14 depending on how the month start is calculated. Back in those days it would have been determined by the Sanhedrin that was still up and running. That means that was about the 14 but at anyrate was a full moon. That means the moon was behind the Earth. Or if you prefer the Earth was between the Sun and the Moon. Meaning a moon eclipse and not a Sun eclipse was possible. So at least we are sure it was not a solar eclipse. Maybe something else. 76.108.151.217 ( talk) 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT WAS A SOLAR ECLIPSE AT THE DAY OF CRUCIFIXION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT FULLMOON. THE SOLAR ECLIPSE HAPPENS ONLY AT THE DAY OF NEW MOON. THIS ERROR OF EVALUATION IS CAUSED BY MECHANICAL TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK WORDS "TOU ELIOU EKLIPONTOS". FROM THE GREEK VERB "EKLEIPO" IS THE WORD ECLIPSE. BUT THESE WORDS DON'T DENOTE ONLY THE ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENON OF ECLIPSE, BUT ANY EFFECT OF DARKNESS. FOR EXAMPLE THE NIMBOSTRATUS PRODUCES DARKNESS SIMILAR TO THESE OF ECLIPSE AND ITS DURATION MAY BE OF MANY HOURS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.235.22 ( talk • contribs) I'm not an expert on the Christain bible, seeing as I am Jewish, and I'm certaily not an expert on Greek, but I agree that there couldn't have been an eclipse when there was a full moon. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The following text was removed:
The following scripture about a cloudless day solar darkening commencing at noon was recorded during the reign of Uzziah of Judah, several centuries before the crucifixion eclipse accounts: [1]
Walvoord has argued that the following scripture would be a sign preceding the great and dreadful Day of the Lord: [2]
:The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come (Joel 2:31).'
Jeffrey indicated the solar darkening predicted in Revelation 6:12 will be caused by an act of God like the blackout that had accompanied the crucifixion. [3] Lockyer connected Joel 2:31 and the crucifixion darkness with an aspect of Christian eschatology through the statement: "Such darkening of the sun was an earnest of 'the great and terrible day of the Lord'." [4]
I see there was discussion above about moving this to Crucifixion darkness, since it contains several arguments, all apparently sound, that this cannot have benn an eclipse. Is there objection to such a move now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made a number of changes to this article, all fully supported by citations from scholarly works or original texts.
1. I have reverted the deletion of some changes to the reference to the prophecy of Amos. I have extended the quotation to show all the details referred to as taking place in one day, and clarified that it refers to the sun setting at midday, not just 'solar darkening that would commence at noon' (ie the sun actually moving as opposed to being blanked out, say). It is now clearer that the quotation refers primarily to an earthquake (this is supported by the citation from Brettler), along with citation of the reference in the Book of Amos and the later Book of Zechariah, both of which claim that the prophecy was fulfilled two years later (also supported by citation from Brettler book).
2. I have added a clarification from a Cambridge University Press book that it is not clear that Thallos himself referred to the crucifixion.
3. I have also expanded and clarified the reference to Tertullian (and added a citation to the original text). The original purpose of this reference was obscure, since Tertullian was not an eyewitness and did not in the previous text of this section refer to any sources (and would presumably be using the Gospel accounts as his source). I assume the reference to a 'tertiary source' here is his assumption that there must be a reference to this in the Roman archives. Tertullian makes similar claims in other places but as some of them appear to be completely fanciful (eg a discussion of the case of Jesus before the Roman senate) most scholars appear not to take these references seriously. -- Rbreen ( talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The section 'similar darkness records' is highly misleading:
The book cited supports very little of this and in fact shows a very different picture.
1. Most of the accounts of the eclipse of 3 June 1239 give no specific duration.
2. The Coimbra account does not state that it took place on Good Friday (which fell in that year on 25 March). It only says that the event took place on a Friday.
3. The Toledo account gives no duration, it says 'lasted for a while between the 6th and 9th hours'; as the author of the Book cited observes, this does not necessarily imply totality.
4. The three hours described by the Coimbra account is described by the author as 'extreme' and he expresses the belief that it 'may well have been inspired by the Passion narrative'.
5. The author makes clear that the language used in the descriptions of that era is ambiguous and therefore unreliable.
6. The only precise account given of the phase of totality is that of an observer in Arezzo, Italy, who states: "I saw the Sun entirely covered for the space of time in which a man could walk fully 250 paces". (estimated at about 5-6 minutes)
In other words, there is nothing about this evidence to indicate that it was anything other than a normal total solar eclipse. As such, it has no relevance to this article, and I am removing it. -- Rbreen ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten this section extensively, to reflect what modern astronomers [Stephenson (1997) and Sawyer (1972)] have to say about these accounts. I have quoted both sources in detail. I have also removed the reference to the 1239 eclipse taking place on Good Friday since the original source did not state this, and as another editor has also pointed out, Good Friday cannot possibly fall in June. -- Rbreen ( talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The book Matthew has ONLY 549 pages. But there is a reference to it added by RBreen that says it has a fact on page 623. Nice going ... Please delete and correct. History2007 ( talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Leads are a specialty of mine. I've reorged this one and added a lot of cited material.
A specific reference to a particular date doesn't belong in the lead unless it has some sort of currency. In point of fact, historians don't credit the account of darkness in the first place, so figuring out when the moon might have been "as blood" or whatever is just beside the point. An ahistorical account doesn't help you answer a historical question.
This article (and lead) could use more about the darkness as a part of Christian belief and less about astronomers tooling around with math and numbers. Leadwind ( talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead now has the statement:
Is this what all the historical research has suggested? Before I start researching this further, does anyone have any info to the contrary? The statement just has one reference to support it and the assertion seems overly general, in a first reading. Ideas will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 12:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being called someone who likes to "tool with numbers", I should point out that the general use of the word
chronology has two separate components:
The fact that the distances may be neat 3 hour intervals is a totally separate issue from the order in which the events took place. And the use of the word chronology in general has to rely more on the temporal order than the metric distance.
It would be a fun exercise to represent the events in terms of a formal logic system, but that would not help the Wikipedia article, for it would be original research.
Next, do you have a solid reference that uses the word concocted"? The lead just mentions one reference. Are there really zero references to support Mark?
So my real question still remains, has anyone else here looked at these issues in detail, before I spend the next month researching it again? I looked up Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible and it does not help the case for Mark that much, but Alan Cole's book The Gospel according to Mark seems more favorable but is less historical overall. So more research is needed.
Thanks History2007 ( talk) 19:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the title gives a strong implication that the event (if it occurred at all) was a solar eclipse, which none of the descriptions bear out -- not the Biblical ones, or the nonbiblical ones. It sounds *exactly* like standard ancient descriptions of seismic (earthquake & earthquake-accompanied volcanic) events, and *none* of the details (date, accompanying earthquake, duration, weird sky colorations) fit an eclipse. Vultur ( talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The comment above regarding title NPOV brings about the issue of article focus. The way I see it:
The section in the Crucifixion of Jesus article has the title "Darkness and eclipse" and discusses darkness and a lunar eclipse. My first idea of the title and structure therefore is to have the title "darkness and eclipse" or "darkness and red moon". The term "sky phenomena" does not really work. The earthquake is probably not in the scope of this article. However, the key issues to be addressed in the article need to be:
The two issues of sky darkness and red moon need to be in the same article because they are both "sky events" and unusual phenomena reported in the Gospels. And teh outline above may just become the structure that is needed anyway. Comments will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
History2007 mentions '..as in Apostle Peter's reference to a "moon of blood" in Acts 2:20'. That needs care. Firstly this is not Peter's saying, but rather his quoting a lengthy and apocalyptic passage from the Old Testament prophet Joel. Is there any evidence that Peter applied a literalist interpretation to that Joel passage? From the context of the wider Acts passage (say Acts 2:14-24) it seems doubtful that Peter was interpreting each and every element to have had a literally-interpreted fulfilment in the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost sequence.
Taking the entirety of the Joel quotation (Acts 2:17-21), it seems evident that Peter is primarily addressing the Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit, not the crucifixion (although he will later turn to that after his "now let's wind the clock back" at v22). By the way for his Jewish audience, steeped in a deep reverence of the Hebrew scriptures, his whole address (Acts 2:14-36) is a masterpiece of oratory. So I'm reverting the particular recent edit (image caption) that seems to be off the mark. But I'm happy with your other changes, History2007. Thanks.
Feline Hymnic ( talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commentators are divided upon whether Peter was claiming that all the quoted prophecy from Joel had recently been fulfilled (e.g. Neil21) or whether the words refer to the future. We will investigate the former interpretation further, demonstrate that 'the moon turned to blood' probably refers to a lunar eclipse, and show that this interpretation is self consistent and enables the crucifixion to be dated precisely.
Spot on! We agree. Reliable, high-quality references for "the land of reference". Glad you found one. Thanks. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A lunar eclipse, whether it was visible from jerusalem (or the western world) or not, seems plausible to me. However the idea that it must have occurred on a friday (as Humphreys and Waddington apparently assumed) is totally unwarrented. the 15th of the first month is always a sabbath regardless of what day of the week it was. http://holtz.org/Library/Social%20Science/History/Metals%20Age/Dating%20Jesus%20Death%20by%20Lunar%20Eclipse.htm if the link doesnt work replace the %20's with spaces. just-emery ( talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Greek term used in Mat 27:62, Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:14, 19:31 and 19:42 for the day of crucifixion is paraskeve or preparation day. The word paraskeve always means the day before the seventh-day Sabbath and never the day preceding a non-seventh-day festival sabbath. The term is understood as interchangeable with Friday. Even today some languages even use a form of Paraskeve as their term for Friday. All serious scholars agree that the crucifixion fell on a Friday. Colin J. Humphreys & W. G. Waddington go over all this in their December 1983 article in Nature. They conclude: "Thus some scholars believe that all four gospels place the Crucifixion on Friday, 14 Nisan and others believe that, according to the Synoptics, it occurred on Friday, 15 Nisan. For generality, we assume at this stage that both dates are possible and set out to determine in which of the years AD 26-36 the 14th and 15th Nisan fell on a Friday." The debate is about whether the crucifixion was on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, not whether it was on a Friday. Toroid ( talk) 05:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a message that Xandar left for me, when I asked his opinion (he knows much more theology).
Based on that I think the intro needs to be reworked. I will do so in a day or two. History2007 ( talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The use of "File:Lunar eclipse March 2007.jpg" in the lead is definitely WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also, the lead needs to be edited for NPOV. 75.15.200.172 ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Darkness from the 6th hour could simply be sunset. Then his death at the 9th hour would be at midnight, the same time the angel of death went throughout Egypt exodus 12 :29 ˄ Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I always assumed that the passage referred to a sandstorm, which could have blocked out the sun, exposed remains at cemeteries, rent (or at least parted) the Temple curtain, and perhaps would involve such turbulence, force, and noise as to deserve the description provided. Doesn't any published source adopt this seemingly straightforward interpretation? Wnt ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is still way too biased towards the highly questionable (to be generous) eclipse explanation. There is hardly any mention of seismic (earthquake+volcano) explanations, despite the sources and discussion last year in the 'title and structure' and 'title not NPOV' section of the talk page; the account fits extremely closely with ancient descriptions of seismic events, and does not really have anything in common with an eclipse besides "darkness during daytime". (A lunar eclipse even gets thrown in to explain the bloody-moon stuff, despite a discolored moon being a *clear* result of stuff in the atmosphere (clouds/ash/whatever)!)
Obviously the eclipse needs to be *in* the article, because tons of sources talk about it (despite its total unsuitability to the actual description of the 'Crucifixion darkness event'!), but it should not dominate it.
This sentence is especially problematic: "The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used an argument against its historicity." Because this long length of time is only a problem if you assume a priori it was an eclipse - an atmospheric explanation (volcanic ash, or " earthquake weather", which whatever its scientific basis is undoubtedly a fixture in ancient descriptions of earthquakes - Ammianus Marcellinus' description of the 365 Crete earthquake includes heavy thunderstorms, and I believe Herodotus also mentions storm-weather with earthquakes; plus the other Biblical descriptions which tie together atmospheric and seismic events: Rev 6:12-14, Amos 8:8-9) would quite naturally last hours. There isn't an easy way to fix it, either; because this is something that has indeed been reputably argued (so should be in the article) but is totally nonsensical (and is thus hard to put in in a NPOV way). Perhaps "The length of time the event is supposed to have lasted is exceptionally unusual for an eclipse; this has been used as an argument against its historicity" - this wording avoids our seeming to buy into the nonsensical presumption that the event must have been either fictional or an eclipse. Vultur ( talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The citation states that 20% of the moon was within the umbra. Later the texts talks about the "20% visible". Should it be "invisible" in stead? Fomalhaut76 ( talk) 12:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The section "Similar accounts of darkness" begins as follows:
The same phenomena and portents of the sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead have been reported by multiple ancient writers for the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC.
Since this text has been in place for almost two years, I don't want to remove it without prior notice, as that might seem disruptive. The problem with this statement is that it is backed up with a reference to a blog on a site dedicated to promoting a fringe theory about the origin of the Gospels. The author of the blog works entirely within the framework of this theory. There is no evidence of any form of editorial oversight of the type expected for reliable sources per WP:RS. Therefore, if no convincing counter-arguments are given and/or no good alternative source is provided to justify this contention, I will proceed to remove the entire sentence. Iblardi ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PiCo ( talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just for reference, I'm pasting the GA criteria here (I have no previous connection with this article or with the article's GAR process). The bold is the individual GA criteria and the bullet-point text is my comment; where I agreethat the article meets the criteria, I simply repeat the description of the criterion.
- tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and - have suitable captions. PiCo ( talk) 02:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the review going to be done? No comments in over a month? Wizardman 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk ·
contribs)
15:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator:
Rbreen
I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell ( talk) 13:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This article needs some work to improve the prose and consistency of formatting, but it's basically a strong GA contender. The sources you use are top-notch. I believe the organization is appropriate. I also think the length is appropriate. Here are some issues I have identified.
Resolved issues
|
---|
:A good point, I have fixed this, although not sure readers will spot that there are 2 links, not one.
:There are two versions of the Greek text. One says the sun was darkened, the other says eclipsed. The scholarly view (and the NRSV seems to be the preferred scholarly translation) is that the 'eclipsed' version is probably correct, with the other text versions having been changed to bring it into conformity with the other synoptics, and because it was known that such a phenomenon was impossible. Yes, Loader does specifically say that Luke explains it as an eclipse.
:I agree. Removed.
:Ouch! Yes, didn't see that. Fixed it.
:Please fix anything you can; I have been working my way through the references but it's not an area I am knowledgeable about.
|
I'm putting the nomination on hold. If these issues are addressed in a timely manner, I believe this article will pass all our GA criteria. – Quadell ( talk) 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This article now fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote this candidate. – Quadell ( talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article has historically used the "AD" system, but there has been a significant rewrite the last few months. The era notation was removed (e.g. 70 AD becoming 70) and then added back with a different system (e.g. 70 becoming 70 CE). It seems that per WP:ERA we should discuss the system here and gain consensus. Personally, since the subject matter is entirely New Testament-related, I would be in favour of AD notation. St Anselm ( talk) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
I put "not in source" template to this sentence. ..... Fitzmyer compares the event to a contemporary description recorded in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, [5] which recounts "unlawful acts against the gods, from which we believe the very sun turned away, as if it too were loath to look upon the foul deed". [6] Such sentence is not in the source given, neither anything with similar meaning in source. -- 89.176.48.220 ( talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The article says that the Gospel of John says that the crucifixion took place on Passover, citing William Barclay's book (which I don't have). John 19:14 says that it was Preparation Day of Passover Week, however. Dwschulze ( talk) 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)