Talk:Crucifixion darkness/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Welcome. Tcisco 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

Historians have relied on biblical and extra-biblical accounts to establish chronologies. This article cites peer reviewed references from both sides of the argument against the three-hour blackout: solar eclipses and lunar eclipses. Tertiary and primary secular accounts from documents that have been judged to be reliable and spurious are consistent with the Synoptic Gospels. Professional astronomers have analyzed those records under the assumptions of reliable and unreliable descriptions. The descriptive aspect of the crucifixion events provided by this article stems from a series of peer reviewed assessments, not biased presumptions.Tcisco 13:12, 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 is about eyewitness accounts of people from the time" -> No, it's absolutely not. The non-biblical accounts are all along the lines of "a Christian from the Third Century said that a historian who lived a hundred years earlier said that a hundred MORE years before THAT, there was an eclipse". You might choose to believe that, but that is hardly an "eyewitness account of people from the time". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.8.50 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is written with the assumption that only the accounts that reported a darkness are accurate, and that the lack of an account in other records is a cover-up of some sort. Nik42 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The so called "cover-ups" took the form of early attempts to attribute the unusual darkness to a solar eclipse. Those accounts and corresponding astronomical papers have been cited in the article. Various explanations for the silence of notable historians were cited. Their silence was not a cover-up, but an abstension from comment. Denying the event is equivalent denying the crucifixion. The lengthy darkness, earthquake, and crucifixion cannot be separated. Secular and biblical records do not support denying the darkness and accepting the crucifixion. And, I have yet to encounter a document that claims the crucifixion transpired without the darkness. A paper was cited that presented a spectacular lunar eclipse as an alternate explanation.

With respect to accuracy, the oldest account happens to be the most comprehensive. The book of Matthew is a primary documented that had been promulgated while eye witnesses were alive to validate it. This fact had been physically evinced in 1994 by scanning LASER microscopes. Matthew was written before 66 A.D. according to analyses of the Magdalen Papyrus, P64 fragments. Matthew's style resembled the shorthand skills of a tachygrapher. He had penned some of the longest versions of Jesus Christ's sermons. Textual analyses point to a Greek document that had been originally completed in Hebrew within five years of the crucifixion. Comparisons between translations of Matthew from various periods of history have consistently yielded a crucifixion darkness of three hours. The oldest descriptions were in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They consistently claim three hours along with many of the younger, secular, primary documents.

The diverse primary and tertiary documents recorded an incredible event. More recent document hint at similar reoccurrences. They could be rejected like the early accounts of meteors and tornadoes or could be examined for their heliophysical ramifications. Global stellar blackouts may not be beyond the attributes of solar models. Tcisco 06:32, 6 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)

I agree with just about everything you have stated. This subject should not be an encyclopedic entry. This is apologetics. Burpboohickie (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You should examine the analyses by Mark Kidger (1999}. He considered non-trivial aspects of the synoptic gospels and a non-biblical source to manifest both the duration and intensity of the darkness. One of his findings was that partial solar eclipses and a set of total eclipses within the popular dates for the crucifixion could not satisfy the details of their reports. Tcisco 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does mention the total solar eclipse of 29 AD, but then fails to draw what seems to be an obvious explanation: that the author of Mark (writing decades later) used that event as his inspiration, moved it to the year and time of the crucifixion, and exaggerated its duration. And Matthew and Luke copied from Mark (the "Synoptic Problem"). Surely somebody notable has reached the same conclusion (to avoid this being OR)?

Indeed, almost the whole article (except the brief paragraph on "Historicity") seems based on the assumption that the Biblical account is an accurate description of a real event, and then trying to wrestle with the implications of that: when even the lack of coverage within John indicates otherwise. Why is this? --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of reliable documents have indicated it was (1.) a real event that (2.) had reoccurred in a manner exceeding the characteristics of large total solar eclipses. Analyses by Carsten Peter Thiede (cited in Further reading) strengthened the position of the Gospel of Matthew as the oldest New Testament text – it preceded the works attributed to Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew did not copy Mark’s work. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter, the earliest non-canonical account of the crucifixion, was treated as a reliable description of the solar blackout by the astronomer Mark Kidger. Tertiary works by Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Tertullian treated the variety of accounts of the crucifixion darkness as reliable descriptions of physical phenomena. Various reliable and spurious documents from the first three centuries of Christianity that had described the crucifixion included its accompanying darkness. It was real.

The mainstream scholarly position is that Mark came first, and Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Likewise, all other Christian sources that mention the "darkness" could have derived it from Mark. Saying "it was real" doesn't make it real (though the 29 AD eclipse, of course, WAS real). --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Various currents, not the entire mainstream, have made that conclusion. Thiede's analyses of the Magdallan Papyrus included examinations of letter depths by a confocal scanning laser microscope. He deduced the greater relative age of the Gospel of Matthew. His subsequent reports and publication have not been rejected by an overwhelming majority of papyrologists. Various astronomers have treated the darkness as inexplicable, not impossible.Tcisco (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable records of additional solar blackouts have been examined. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and T’ang Dynasty records described an hour long darkening of the sun in 879 AD that was attributed to the eclipse of October 29, 878 AD. Documents from Arezzo, Italy; Cesena, Italy; Coimbra, Portugal; Florence, Italy; Montpellier, France; and Siena, Italy explicitly stated the darkness of the Sun lasted at least one hour. Those accounts were attributed to the solar eclipse of June 3, 1239. Historians have stated primitive man could distinguish between the elapse of a few minutes and a few hours.Tcisco (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is astronomically impossible for a total solar eclipse to last for more than a few minutes (at least, not the period of actual totality). Rather, these accounts indicate that exaggeration of the period of darkness is not confined to this one instance, but has happened on several other occasions: lending further credence to the "exaggerated eclipse" theory. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Astronomically inexplicable is not synonymous for impossible. Kidger, an astronomer, examined the crucifixion darkness and concluded it was inexplicable. Are you aware of any peer reviewed articles that have presented proofs stating it is impossible for over half of the entire surface of photospheres of G-class stars to temporarily and drastically reduce irradiance in the visible portion of the spectrum? Please inform us of such papers and/or photospheric models. The fact that the American Association for Variable Star Observers doesn’t possess such light curves for G-class stars is not a sufficient proof for impossibility. The solar spectrum has not been a constant. X-ray emissions from another region of the sun drastically changes with the solar cycle. Another mechanism could be a form of Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud. The darkenings may be explained in terms of an interstellar cloud that passes between the orbits of Earth and Venus. Obscurrations other than eclipses may have caused the phenomena. The accounts of the blackening of the solar disk cited in this article have been produced by respected publishers. Interpretations and explanations of their texts have been contested by astronomers, theologians, and papyrologists. The extant article cited claims that stemmed from only the text of those writings – it has been purged of original research and apologetic statements. Exaggerated durations of darkness arguments have stemmed from speculation, not rigorously established proofs, for impaired subjective time reckoning induced by sudden, unexpected darkness. Tcisco (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it is astronomically impossible for a total solar eclipse to produce the duration described. You are now describing something else entirely (for which there is no good evidence). A darkening of the Sun would have been visible from the entire daylit half of the Earth. And yet there aren't any non-Christian primary accounts of this phenomenon, and numerous ancient historians who were around at the time failed to record any such event: there's really no good reason to suppose that it ever happened as described. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Attributing the darkness to a total solar eclipse is difficult. Interpreting the darkness as impossible is a different matter. The biblical and extracanonical accounts satisfy the Wikipedia rules for reliable publishers. Silence by historians about physical phenomena is not unusual. For example, total solar eclipses that had overshadowed the Nile from 2861 BC through 1063 BC went unrecorded by the Egyptians. Eclpses were an embarassment to Sun worshippers. Roman historians would not document events contrary to imperial policy of censorship against Christians. The Edict of Toleration was declared in 313 AD, centuries after the crucifixion events. Rationale for assuming the events had been observed stems from the primary and tertiary documents. Accounts of meteors, tornados, and fireballs had been treated as "rubbish" until recently. The documents about those events did not change - they simply acquired recognition.Tcisco (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...By the way, with regard to the other "blackouts": it is ridiculously improbable that any change in the actual brightness of the Sun would coincidentally happen on a day when there is a total solar eclipse (an event that is caused entirely by the movements of the Earth and Moon, and doesn't actually involve anything special happening to the Sun). And we can calculate when (and where) the actual solar eclipses occurred. Therefore an exaggeration of the duration of an actual solar eclipse remains the obvious explanation. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The numwerous chroniclers of the event in 1239 were amazed and shocked. A pillar even carries an inscription about it. Very few eclipses have been documented by inscribed pillars and/or sculptures. Eclipses for the lattitudes of those cities would limit totality to four minutes. Assuming the numerous accounts from different cultures about that event would confuse sixty minutes for four is hard to believe. That facts are the diligent translations of reliable documents from eight cities and a pillar recorded the event. It was mentioned in the article because of the connection one of the chroniclers had made between it and the crucifixion darkness. It is not the sole example of large total solar eclipses.Tcisco (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (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)

Astronomical records of the time

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)

"Time reckoning conventions" section removed here

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)

Scholars that classify descriptions of the crucifixion darkness as symbolic expressions either neglect or fail to satisfactorily account for the ability of technologically primitive writers to reliably describe the duration of phenomena. Time reckoning conventions verify the fact that mankind, for centuries before the invention of mechanical clocks, could distinguish between a few minutes and a few hours. Details about ancient battles have stemmed from good faith in the authors' ability to provide an accurate description. The documents cited by F. R. Stephenson's work are consistent with those of the crucifixion eclipse. Arguments that such accounts are delusional or symbolic are interesting, but should not be used to obscure established facts. Time reckoning ability of the ancients is a fact. One that should not be taken lightly. If a writer of such accounts has a reputation for integrity, time reckoning should be incorporated with the problem of explaining the phenomena.

The time reckoning section should have been discussed prior to its removal. It stemmed from several tertiary writings that had been appropriately cited. Such actions are not the product of Wikipedia's good faith recommendation for edits and serve to evince vandalism. Tcisco 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia policies, as far as I know, that require discussion before changes can be made to articles. My edits were indeed made in good faith, and were not intended to do damage to the content of the article or otherwise vandalize it.

As stated above, I think that the "time reckoning" section needed to be removed because its relationship to the rest of the article was unclear. At most, readers may require some brief explanatory remarks so that they can make sense of biblical references to the "sixth hour" and the "ninth hour". But these remarks should come after or alongside the citations of the synoptic texts, perhaps as a brief parenthetical remark or even as a footnote. Otherwise the material is confusing and even disorienting.

You write that those who "classify descriptions of the crucifixion darkness as symbolic expressions...neglect or fail to satisfactorily account for the ability of technologically primitive writers to reliably describe the duration of phenomena." Most scholars (including the very standard Anchor Bible commentary that I cited above) appear to interpret the talk of "darkness" in the Synoptic Gospels as something other than a reliable account of an actual event. Whatever our personal views may be, Wikipedia should make the scholarly consensus clear and properly emphasize this consensus. That is, after all, the purpose of an encyclopedia.

But I also think your argument is unreasonable. Scholars who say that the references to "darkness" are symbolic are implying absolutely nothing about the ability of "technologically primitive writers" to "describe the duration of phenomena." Instead, they doubt that it was necessarily the sole intent of these authors to provide accurate descriptions of phenomena. They suspect that some of the stories told by these texts are better understood as symbolic references, rather than literal descriptions of actual events.

ECKnibbs 15:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue for the initial location of Time Reckoning Conventions as being the optimal location. Repositioning and further clarifications are in order.

People have been tempted to neglect the physical interpretation and its ramifications because it has not been specifically addressed by the arguements for symbolism. Symbollic significance and physical interpretations can work together. One should not obscure the other without good reason. The reality of the Tau neutrino was established from four positive results out of 6,600,000 particle events. The four sets of records, if they were the product of observations of physical phenomena, for the crucifixion elcipse and the documents dated to the solar eclipses of October 29, 878, April 11, 1176, and June 3, 1239 represent a rareness ratio that is larger than that for the tau neutrinos. Approximately 2,009,325 days have elapsed between the crucifixion and the year 2005. If the literal interpretation is correct, it corrresponds to a ratio of 4 to 2,009,325. That ratio is almost three times larger than the one for the tau neutrino. And, though it is rare, it is worth considering both astrophysically and heliosphysically. Including time reckoning with the other controversial topics helps to stimulate creative thinking. Tcisco 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bouw sunspots

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:

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood (Revelation 6:12).

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)

A couple of physical explanations for the crucifixion darkness have been published. The article provided a survey with ramifications.

I excluded that one the explanation that argued the entire path of the Moon's shadow could account for the three hours. It was inconsistent with texts of a stationary observer. The article tried to be loyal to specifics provided by the writers.

Even though the rigor of Barbiero's formalism can be disputed, I included Dodd's application of Barbiero's work as an explanation for the crucifixion darkness. It represented an attempted to apply a few principles of rigid body motion.

The article by Gerardus D. Bouw appeared in The Biblical Astronomer, a journal that supports geocentricity. Such a publication may or may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable resources. I am not aware of a list by Wikipedia of unreliable journals. Bouw offered a collection of possible explanations in the "Summary and Conclusion" section of his review biblical and extra-biblical writings. They were presented to explain the physical interpretation of historical documents about the crucifixion darkness. The last one in the set was the sun becoming one huge sunspot. My inclusion of material following his seemingly preposterous suggestion was offered to provoke "out-of-box" thinking via its ramifications. I believe one of the goals of Wikipedia is to stimulate creative thinking and research. Severe, photospheric disturbances should not be discarded. Recent research has isolated strong correlations between the position of the Earth relative to a group of sunspots and seismic activity. Biologists have found correlations between animal behavior and geomagnetic fluctuations. Those facts illustrate the ramifications of Bouw's suggestion and could be used to evince other explanations. In Christian eschatology, rogue stars and bodies of dark matter have been offered as explanations for the prediction of solar darkening appearing in the Book of Revelation. Those perturbations may disburbe the photosphere in a manner to cause the magnetic effects. I did not include those citations because they did not specifically address the crucifixion darkness. Tcisco 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; its goal is not to "provoke out-of-box thinking," but to provide information about noteworthy things, ideas, and people, consistent with scholarly consensus and reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for essays, original research, and related material.

ECKnibbs 15:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bouw's suggestion is literally a noteworthy idea. The list of heliophysical ramifications support that assessment.Tcisco

If Bouw's suggestion were in fact noteworthy in and of itself, then it would require its own article, independent of the crucifixion eclipse. Yet I don't think this is the case. For reasons I put forth on your talk page, Bouw's article does not constitute a reliable source, and so cannot be used in the article here.

ECKnibbs 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the title appropriate?

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)

The title represents the difficulties astonomers have had with providing a physical explanation for the historical accounts. Tcisco 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And how does it represent these "difficulties"? All the material in the article seems devoted to saying that what happened was not an eclipse. Won't that confuse readers? And how is it an appropriate title if it does not even appear to be a standard means of referring to the subject?

ECKnibbs 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Astronomers have made rigorous attempts to explain the crucifixion darkness in terms of meteorological obscurrations, volcanic clouds, total solar eclipses, partial solar eclipses, and lunar eclipses under the assumption or the veracity of the historical documents. Questionable approaches have presented orbital perturbations and meteoroid impacts as explanations. Models from pseudoscience and established physics have not satisfied all of the inherent criteria: three hours of darkness commencing at Noon on a cloudless day. Tcisco 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how does any of this justify calling this article Crucifixion eclipse, when in fact the article seems to be suggesting that an eclipse could not have caused the darkness described by the Synoptic gospels? And how does this justify creating an article to explain a term that does not appear to have significant currency outside the article? The more I read this material, the more I think it doesn't require its own article. At most, some of the points here should be folded into Passion (Christianity) or the Death and resurrection of Jesus.

ECKnibbs 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to having the title changed to "Crucifixion darkness." Most references follow that line. If we were to support the eye witness accounts, "Crucifixion blackout" would be more appropriate. Either way, I will agree to replacing eclipse, in the title, with another word. Tcisco 07:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Sudden noon sunset" section

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)

Agreed - there is very little astrophysical sense to be had in this article. Sophia 06:44, 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 goal of the article was to provide survey of published physical explanations for the crucifixion darkness. Even though the rigor of Barbiero's formalism can be disputed, I included Dodd's application of Barbiero's work as an explanation for the crucifixion darkness. It represented an attempt to apply a few principles of rigid body motion to a semifluid gyroscoptic model of the Earth. I do not know what its ranking would be on a pseudoscience scale. Tcisco 15:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Dodds does not appear to meet Wikipedia reliable source standards, and so he cannot be used in this article. The entire section on "sudden noon sunset" is thus without a reliable source, and so I removed it.

ECKnibbs 16:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's rating would be High - it seems to take no account of conservation of momentum. Sophia 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eclipse Models

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 was something else. Seismic activity seems to be a product of the recorded and predicted phenomena. Primitive cultures have been able to distinguish between the lapse of three minutes and three hours.Tcisco (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I do not see where the article even mentions the following:
  • A solar eclipse occurs when the moon's shadow falls on Earth, hence the moon must be directly between Sun and Earth - a new Moon! No other phase can produce a solar eclipse. We can never see a solar eclipse during Easter or Passover because these holidays fall near the full moon. They cannot occur on the new moon. Any darkening during the crucifixion was not a naturally occurring solar eclipse. --JimWae (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly and Origen already noted this almost eighteen hundred years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anon post moved from top of page

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)

This is addressed in the article. I am removing the POV template. --Tone 14:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Biblical prophecies

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:

And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day (Amos 8:9).

Walvoord has argued that the following scripture would be a sign preceding the great and dreadful Day of the Lord:

: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. 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'."

Removed from article as it has nothing to do with it. Sophia 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert executed. Explicit connections between the passages cited and the crucifixion were published in Thompson (1964) in the Amos 8:9 margin reference Index 2177; statements made by Walvoord (1991, p. 272); Jeffrey (1995, pp. 138-139); and Lockyer (1971, p. 243). They were ascertained to be predictions by those authors. Please check the reference prior to performing massive deletions.Tcisco (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read through deleted item before restoring as it's terrible grammar and meaningless to read. How does Jeffrey saying that the darkness predicted in Revelations will be like that of the crucifixion tell us anything at all about the actual "crucifixion eclipse" itself? Revelations was written 'after' the crucifixion! You also do not also make clear that they identify the "day of the lord" with the crucifixion. Knee jerk reactions to "protect" an article do not improve them one iota. Sophia 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand if we had scholars saying these bible verses were predicting the crucifixion eclipse. But the cited sources say these verse refer to the end time and Revelation. Therefore, this content is off topic and not appropriate for this article. I would support it's removal. (or, I could accept leaving the biblical quotes, IF we have sources that say these quotes are supposed to be predicting the crucifixion eclipse).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Marginal reference 2177 for Amos 8:9 in Thompson's work was an implicit connection. I will replace it. Lockyer stated the crucifixion was another possible fulfilment of the prophecy in Amos 8:9. And, I will include Rudman's article because he listed several scholars who see Amos 8:9 "obliquely predicting Jesus'death (with its associated manifestation of darkness)." The other scholars cited in the Crucifixion Eclispe article had suggested the crucifixion darkness was a foreshadowing of the darkness predicted by Rev. 6:12.Tcisco (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eclipse

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)

If you subtract wikipedia from a google search of each term, "crucifixion darkness" barely wins. However, both names get around 600 hits. I wonder if there isn't a more common name still. If not, I would support the move. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar results were obtained by a Google Scholar search: darkness yielded six (due to a comma) and eclipse yielded five. If the article is moved to Crucifixion darkness, the introductory paragraph will have to be modified. Tcisco (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to move articles. The following is a recommended introductory paragraph that could replace the current one whenever someone has moved the article to Crucifixion darkness:

Crucifixion darkness refers to the three-hour period of night-like conditions accompanying the Crucifixion of Jesus as reported by the synoptic gospels of the Christian Bible. It has been referred to as an eclipse although such phenomena cannot reproduce the specific conditions described in the gospels and related accounts. Tcisco (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

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)

Thanks for the contributions summarized under (2.) and (3.) of the above. With respect to (1.), bringing the Sun down at noonday does not have to mean moving it towards the horizon just as the phrase "bring the house lights down" does not mean to lower the light bulbs to the floor. Other scholars have interpreted the prophecy in Amos to mean a noonday solar blackout would transpire. A rapid sunset at noon would be extremely hard to explain. A reference attempting to justify a sudden sunset at noon was discussed on this page above and was deleted. Tcisco (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar darkness records

The section 'similar darkness records' is highly misleading:

A clear sky, three-hour solar blackout documented in Coimbra, Portugal; Toledo, Spain; Montpellier, France; Marola, Florence, Siena, Arezzo, and Cesena, Italy; and Split, Croatia was attributed to the total solar eclipse of June 3, 1239.[29] The description from Marola is an inscription on a pillar. The author of the account from Coimbra stated the day of the blackout was Good Friday and the time of the start and ending of the darkness matched that of the crucifixion. The chronicler in Siena stated people lit their lamps. And, the writer in Split said it was not mentioned in Asia and Africa even though it had been witnessed throughout Europe.

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.

Most of the cities cited, six of the eight, specified the duration. On page 385, Coimbra, Portugal recorded three hours and Toledo, Spain recorded three hours; pages 397-401 state the Italian cities Arezzo recorded 5-6 minutes, Cesena recorded one hour, Siena recorded three hours; and Montpellier, France stated the darkness endured from midday to the sixth hour. Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an interpretation, it is not what the text says. The Arezzo account is by an astronomer, Restoro d'Arezzo, who was an eyewitness who takes care to give a precise, detailed account of the event. His details are entirely consistent with what would be expected in an eclipse. The author of the book cited says this account "is the earliest known which gives a meaningful estimate of the duration of its totality". (page 398) He also gives an account of an eclipse in Sudan where a professional observer noted the duration of totality at two minutes, but found that local people were convinced it had lasted two hours: "To everyone the two minutes of the eclipse were like two hours" (page 385).

The Coimbra account says darkness occurred 'from the sixth to the ninth hours'. It is an account by a chronicler (ie not an eyewitness), who gets the year (but not the day and month) wrong. The Cesena account says it became dark after the ninth hour, and darkness lasted 'for the space of an hour'. This account is by an annalist, not an eyewitness. The Florence account, by a chronicler (who, once again, gets the year wrong) says the sun was obscured 'at the sixth hour' and remained obscured 'for several hours'. The Montpellier account, by a chronicler, says the eclipse took place 'between midday and the ninth hour', but does not specify how long the actual period of darkness lasted. The Siena account, from the archives, gives the onset at the sixth hour, with totality beginning at the ninth hour (the author of the book cited points out that this time interval should have been no more than an hour); the account given in the history of Split gives no duration.

In other words, the various accounts give very different and conflicting information (and since Cesena, Arezzo, Florence and Siena are very close, the facts ought to be nearly identical). The only clear eyewitness account, by an astronomer, gives an account exactly consistent with the expected details of a normal solar eclipse. There is no good reason to reject this in favour of less clear, second-hand approaches? --Rbreen (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

According to page 399, for the Coimbra account: “On the 3rd day before the Nones of June (Jun 3), on the same day that Christ suffered, namely the 6th day of the week (Friday), and at the same time that darkness occurred over the whole Earth at the Passion of our Lord, namely from the 6th to the 9th hours of the era 1237…” Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The sixth day of the week, Friday. Not Good Friday, which cannot fall in June.

A Friday preceding Easter has been treated as Good Friday. Attempts to date the crucifixion in terms of a total solar eclipse have yielded dates beyond April. Tcisco (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This was not a Friday preceding Easter. Easter 1239 fell in March. This eclipse took place in June, on a Friday long after Easter. The chronicler does not say it was Good Friday; only that it was the sixth day of the week - ie Friday. The actual date of the crucifixion is irrelevant here. --Rbreen (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

According to page 385, it was dark enough, like nighttime, for the stars to appear and it was associated with the AD 1239 June 3 accounts of the eclipse. Although the Toledo account could not serve as the sole form of evidence for a total eclipse, it was consistent with those that were used. Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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'.

Although extreme, it was not dismissed by the author – he offered an alternative. F. Richard Stephanson stated, with respect to the accounts of the crucifixion darkness: “The fact that this darkness lasted three hours may account for some of the excessive durations of darkness found in a number of medieval records of large solar eclipses – extreme examples being three hours (Coimbra, AD 1239) and four hours (Reichersberg, AD 1241) – see section 11.61 below.” His statement was not a rejection of record. Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not rejecting the record; he is simply pointing out that the excessive durations described are probably accounted for by the fact that the authors are familiar with the Gospel account and are matching their descriptions to events in the Bible - an entirely typical approach for medieval writers. --Rbreen (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5. The author makes clear that the language used in the descriptions of that era is ambiguous and therefore unreliable.

It should be noted that other medieval accounts about shorter durations of solar darkness were accepted as evidence of solar eclipses. Grammar and/or integrity are not functions of the length of darkness. Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of eclipses, but not necessarily of durations, for reasons as described. --Rbreen (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

The 5-6 minute duration is inconsistent with the records from other Italian cities of much larger periods of darkness. This can be explained as the total length of pure darkness. Other portions of the severe dimming may have been accompanied with solar flare feature recorded by Cesena, Italy, and Split, Croatia. Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As explained, the Arezzo account is by far the most reliable. The phenomenon seen by Restoro was exactly the same as that in the neighbouring cities, but he gives a precise, eyewitness account. --Rbreen (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The June 3, 1239, could be treated as a combined event. For example, a 5-6 minute segment of the three hours of darkness had been caused by the total solar eclipse. The solar flare like image, described by other cities, would have been obscurred by the Moon during that phase of the darkness. If the prolonged period of severe dimming had been caused by a global sunspot storm, the descriptions of anomalous animal behavior and earthquake could be attirbuted to the subsequent disruptions in the magnetosphere and the aprocryphal acounts of the Moon's redness for the entire length of one of the nights after the crucifixion could be explained in terms of lunar luminescence. This is speculation stemming from those and other similar documents that have not been discarded as spurious. But, this conjecture does allow a degree of reliability to be accorded to all of the authors associated with that incredible phenomenon. Tcisco (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all speculation and conjecture, as you say, and therefore original research. You have not cited a notable scholarly source that puts this view. The only source you have cited clearly indicates that this was a normal solar eclipse. --Rbreen (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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 will provide a comprehensive response late this evening. In the mean time, it should be noted that totality for any solar eclipses at the lattitudes of the cities cited for June 3, 1239 is less than the 5-6 minutes estimated from the Arezzo, Italy, document. Therefore, any explicit account of solar disk diming exceeding the maximum length of duration is significant. The author limited his citations to works that unambiguously described the darkening of the solar disk. I will cite the paper that defines maximum durations of totality as a function of lattitudes. Tcisco (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanson’s book provided a collection of reliable documents that, under the assumption of exaggeration, could be attributed to total solar eclipses. He compared them with the crucifixion darkness documents and did not dismiss them as preposterous. Therefore, the section entitled “Similar darkness records” shall be reverted.

I did make an oops. The lattitudes of the cities cited do allow total solar eclipses with durations between 6 minutes 19 seconds and 6 minutes 50 seconds according to Peter McDonald (2000). Total solar eclipses of long duration in the British Isles. J. Br. Astron. Assoc. 110(5), 266-270. Tcisco (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephenson clearly argues that (a) these are descriptions of a total solar eclipse; (b) the Arezzo report gives the 'only meaningful estimate' of its duration; and (c) that the link to the crucifixion eclipse is that the authors, in describing the events, did so with the Gospel account clearly in mind - which makes the reference useless as support for the authenticity of the Gospel account. --Rbreen (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reputable primary accounts of incredibly long periods of severe solar dimming, such as the crucifixion darkness and the events of 879 AD and June 3, 1239, have been handled as historical evidence for solar eclipses. Such records have been retained as the products of exaggeration and have not been discarded as spurious literature. The length of darkness has been the primary cause for various reputable authors to include references to the crucifixion with their descriptions of the phenomena associated with June 3, 1239, and other dates of various solar eclipses. The recognized records for June 3, 1239, along with other "large" solar eclipses, were cited in this article to evince the existence of similar crucifixion eclipse phenomena and practices. Tcisco (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the only sources for this are medieval ones which contradict each other. The only modern scholarly work on the subject (Stephenson) clearly presents these accounts as unreliable as far as the duration is concerned. The only duration which he describes as a 'meaningful estimate' is that of Restoro d'Arezzo, whose estimate, much more precise and clearly more carefully observed than the others, is entirely consistent with an ordinary solar eclipse. Your speculation that this was anything else appears to be original research. Until you can support it with solid scholarly citation, I am going to have to revert it. --Rbreen (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The speculation in this Discussion page about the cause may be original research. Wikipedia does not prohibit such expressions in the Discussion pages - original research is prohibited from the article page. The eyewitness account from Coimbra, recorded in an acknowledge reliable source, connected the crucifixion darkness with the event, as did others. Stephenson's tertiary work connected the medieval accounts with the crucifixion. The Similar Darkness Records section of this article cites the connections of those authors and does not cite my conjecture. The Similar Darkness Records section evinces the existence of records and practices that are not unique to the crucifixion darkness. The deletion of the Similar Darkness Records section on the grounds of original research was erroneous. Subsequently, an immediate undo shall be executed. Tcisco (talk) 20:40, 30 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)

Wrong book?

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)

No, no, no Mr Breen. You got the right book this time, but typed a wrong sentence. Nice going again... Page 623 ONLY mentions Waddington in a footnote in the context of storm clouds in passing and NOT in the context of a lunar eclipse. What you typed is totally missing from that book. Please find a real reference. Cheers History2007 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, you could assume good faith. The Davies / Allison reference is not being cited in support of a comment about Waddington at all. --Rbreen (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am totally, totally, totally assuming good faith. But my rational brain has this habit of wanting to see real science. So it thinks the statement is really pushing the limits of liberal iterpretation - all in good faith of course. That book is about Matthew, not the eclipse, and just mentions that issue about darkness, not eclipse and you get a minor reference out of that and add it to the lead like it is a serious statement that refers to the whole eclipse. Believe me, I am trying not laugh at this conversation. You do have great faith for sure, but please get a real reference.... By the way, you are way past your 3 revert limit... Nice going... I have only done 2... History2007 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I waited for a while, no response from you. I assume you could not find a suitable reference. I will wait a while more, then remove that statement. Cheers History2007 (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what your problem is here. The citation I have provided clearly supports the point in the article; the fact that a reference to a section in the synoptic Gospels is mentioned in passing in a book about the Gospel of Matthew does not invalidate it, unless you are insisting that only a reference from a book about the crucifixion eclipse in the synoptic gospels could possibly be sufficient. I doubt that you would find anyone else on Wikipedia who would support that interpretation of the rules of citation. I suggest that instead of reverting we invite others to express an opinion here, because otherwise it's just your opinion against mine. --Rbreen (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem. The sentence does. And my rational mind keeps nagging me that starting with a very small statement from a footnote in a book on another topic and adding it to the lead with "others" might lead (pun intended) people to think it was a bigger deal than it was. It has improved over teh last N revisions, but still.... Anyway, I just clarified who said what so "others" is less vague. And all editors are welcome to comment, of course. User HMSChallenger said that he wanted to reorganize all the article anyway because it is not up to the best standards, and I agree with that. So whatever is done now may get redone in 2-3 weeks anyway. So no worries, let us wait and time will tell. The Crucifixion took place (I believe) over 2,000 years ago. So 2 weeks a difference does not make. History2007 (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rbreen asked me to comment on this. Regarding the info on 3 April 33: I do not think the current revision constitutes undue weight in favour of that view. Regarding Davies and Allison: On its face, I do not think the current revision constitutes undue weight. I echo Rbreen's comment, "The citation I have provided clearly supports the point in the article; the fact that a reference to a section in the synoptic Gospels is mentioned in passing in a book about the Gospel of Matthew does not invalidate it, unless you are insisting that only a reference from a book about the crucifixion eclipse in the synoptic gospels could possibly be sufficient." I see no reason to discount what they say just because their work is about Matthew as a whole. I would like to see the page in question though. I looked at worldcat and it doesn't seem to be on google books, so would someone want to scan the page in question so I get a better sense of just what the page says? Otherwise it'll have to wait til I get around to the library sort-of near me that has it. And the qualifier, "(in a book on Matthew, in passing)", is entirely gratuitious and un-needed, in keeping with what I quoted from Rbreen above. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Carl. But they probably invented the term overcome by events just for this article's lead. Given Leadwind's reorg, which I think was mostly reasonable, the situation has been overcome by events. It does not make sense to revert Leadwind, for he wrote well, but comments are in order, as below. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment might be appropriate if there were any indication I was going to revert him. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean you reverting him. I was thinking of myself! History2007 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

reorg the lead

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)

Hi, My opinion:

• You provided a pretty good logical structure overall, and wrote with clear sentences. Your efforts are appreciated.

• I think you emphasized the solar eclipse, but the lunar eclipse absolutely needs to be mentioned in the article, because it is a key fact.

• As a person who has spent most of his life "tooling with numbers" I do not agree with de-emphasizing scientific issues from this article. The moment you mention solar eclipse, full moon etc. the door is opened to a discussion of "could it happen" in a scientific context.

• Many people do wonder about the conclusions reached by the astronomers as they read this article, hence while the 12 pages of numbers themselves need not be presented, in order to educate readers (it is an encyclopedia after all) the scientific conclusions need to be presented.

Hence I would like to invite you to add some balanced info about the lunar eclipse and the reference to the Oxford work into the lead, before I make an attempt at it. It is best that you do it first, for you were not part of the ping-pong game Mr Breen and I played (before you took the table away), so you would be somewhat neutral on those issues.

Cheers History2007 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I find Lead's version of the lead to be acceptable as-is. He knows a great deal more about writing leads than I do, so I'm willing to defer to him. The lunar eclipses absolutely is already mentioned in the article, the body not having been changed from your version. Moreover, it is mentioned in the lead as well, (though there may be some room for addition to that sentence). Given that scholarly consensus regards the eclipse as a-historical, to emphasize scientific issues in the lead might be undue weight. And the scientific conclusions are presented... in the body. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The facts:

• You are right that the lunar eclipse is mentioned in the lead.

• I only say that because I noticed it only after you said it was there and I checked carefully. I had not noticed it in teh first reading.

• So it is there, but probably needs to be more noticeable and have a reference.

Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree there needs to be a reference, at least somewhere in that paragraph. It looks naked without one. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I added one reference and mentioned the calendar in that sentence without changing any other sentences. As far as I can see the lead is ok now and the rest of teh material Leadwind added clarifies the basic ideas. However, the rest of the article, even excluding any discussion of the lead is far less than perfect. User:HMSchallenger had said that he found the article "confusing" overall and I agree. But that would be another discussion. Cheers History2007 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark's account

The lead now has the statement:

"Mark's chronology of Jesus' crucifixion and death is apparently artificial"

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)

Mark's chronology is in neat, three-hour segments, looking for all the world like a concocted timeline. It would be miraculous for an oral tradition to preserve an accurate, precise timeline for the 30 years between Jesus' death and Mark's gospel. If there's a historical source that credits Mark's timeline, I'd like to see it. Leadwind (talk) 17:48, 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:

• A temporal order component that specifies the order in which events took place, and can be subject to temporal reasoning regardless of the temporal distance, i.e chronometry.

• An imposition of a metric distance on the events that provides a numeric value for the distances between the events.

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)

History, the longer it takes you to make your point, the farther off-base your point probably is. Please provide a reference that takes Mark's chronology to be historical. Contribute to the article the same way I do, by finding reliable sources and feeding information from them into the text.Leadwind (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I am trying to see if anyone else had done the work. I have not started researching this topic. When I do research, I need to do it very carefully and it takes effort. I will wait 2 or 3 days for suggestions, then start research that may take several weeks. But in the end it will become clear in my mind. I will let you know. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

title not NPOV

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)

What would you prefer to call it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion Darkness had been suggested in the above discussions of November 2007.Tcisco (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better term. I really don't understand why the idea that it was an eclipse got so popular... Vultur (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still working on this topic. In the meantime, the answer to "how" it was thought to be a solar eclipse may be in:

• Stephen C. McCluskey, Astronomies and cultures in early medieval Europe Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521778522

Poems by Prudentius in the 4th century may have even reinforced the belief, etc. I will say more later after I have done more research. History2007 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Bartlett (2008, pp. 51-52) cited several references and diagrams to argue the physical causes of lunar and solar eclipses had been understood from ancient times to the Middle Ages. His quotation of Sacrobosco's statement indicates they had believed God had miraculously used a solar eclipse to cause the three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Bartlett, 2008, p. 69). That explanation contradicts Luke's description of the solar disk darkening and Amos' prediction of the Sun powering down.Tcisco (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but we all seem to be in agreement that the solar eclipse is objected to these days again and again. We should just mention it, with references as to why it may have become popular as a concept and move on. Hence the word darkness needs to be more prominent. Do we have a tentative agreement that "Darkness and eclipse" may work as a title, and that within the article, solar eclipse is discussed, but darkness is the first item, and the lunar discussion as below of course needs to be there, hence the word eclipse needs to be in the title. Unless there are objections, I will just do a rename of the page in a few days. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on my note on May 1st, since there have been no objections, I will now do a rename/move. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the neutrality tag was before teh new lead paragraph, it needs to be removed now that anew intro has been added. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Title and structure

The comment above regarding title NPOV brings about the issue of article focus. The way I see it:

• The solar eclipse idea is in this article just to be denied. Most scholarly references rule out a "solar eclipse". The sources of the belief in the solar eclipse, can however be traced, as in the reference above, and are often more legendary than scholarly.

• The darkness phenomenon must be addressed for the Gospels directly refer to it. But the Gospels do not say "solar eclipse". Hence an article on Crucifixion darkness is needed. But that may not necessarily need to be the title.

• There is good scientific analysis that there could have been a lunar eclipse which did not cause darkness, but made the moon turn red, as in Apostle Peter's reference to a "moon of blood" in Acts 2:20.

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:

• Biblical accounts of darkness
• Non-biblical accounts and prophecies etc.
• Hypotheses about a solar eclipse and why they don't seem to fit.
• Analysis of darkness, similar phenomena, etc.
• Biblical references to a red moon and the scientific analysis of that to date the crucifixion
• Conclusions etc.
• References

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)

We should mention the lunar eclipse if it's in sources, but not give it excessive credence - it's an excessive complication. The earthquake is important because the description is so nearly exact a parallel to other Biblical (Rev 6:12-14; Amos 8:8-9) earthquake descriptions. In ancient sources it's not unknown to describe earthquakes as accompanied by sky events (see Ammianus Marcellinus's description of the 365 Crete earthquake quoted in our article on that quake). Also, Pliny's description of Vesuvius is *very* similar. Surely *somebody*'s made this connection before - there's got to be a source somewhere. Vultur (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The following examined the evidence for the earthquakes associated with the Passion:

Ambraseys, N. (2005). Historical earthquakes in Jersualem - A methodological discussion. Journal of Seismology, 9(3), 329-340.

Ambraseys cited the documents that evinced the earthquake in Nicaea, Bithynia during A.D. 32-3. His research was not able to detect any literary or geological evidence supporting the magnitude of Matthew's descriptions of the concussive ground movements associated with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He stated: "Doubt can be cast on whether the earthquakes at the Crucifixion were 'natural.'" The mechanism for those seismic events could not be attributed to epicenters, fault lines, and asperities. The connection between seismic effects, solar disk darkening, and lunar luminescence, implied by Rev. 6:12, may be heliophysical. Note there were two seismic events associated with the crucifixion and two with Rev. 6:12-14.Tcisco (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter and Acts

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.

1. Peter had just completed an intensive three-year course of parable, metaphor and allusion: "the Kingdom of God is like a mustard-seed" sort of thing.
2. Is there anything in the Acts passage to indicate that Peter is directly and specifically applying Joel's "moon to blood" to the crucifixion?
3. If so, just as importantly, how does he then apply and assign each and every other metaphor in that whole Joel passage, with literal sense, onto the recent event sequence? And how do they distribute across that 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)

Well, I like the way you phrased that about the three year course. But my personal feeling is that Apostle Peter was probably inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it really matters not what you and I think, for this is Wikipedia - the land of the reference. Your reasoning is an interesting piece of original thought, but again this is Wikipedia and original thought and original research are beside the point. What matters is the reference I found that states:[1]

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.

So I will now add that to the article, and will think of a minimal art way of adding it back to the image caption, unless you have specific Wikipedia rules that state that fully referenced text can not be added. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Great, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The conjectures are interesting but, with respect to the land of references, Bloomfield (2002), Hoyt (1969), and Walvoord (1999) stated the entire prophecy of Joel had not been fulfilled and Peter had cited it to indicate the beginning of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Several biblical literalists have supported this interpretation. Humphreys and Waddington had attempted to offer a variant of that literal interpretation. Their results indicated only 20% of the lunar disk was in umbra for thirty minutes and speculated, not prove, it was partly red. Schaefer (1990) rigorously proved the eclipsed Moon would not have been visible at moonrise. Ruggles (1990) supported Schaefer’s analyses. Then, Schaefer (1991) rigorously proved the Moon could not have been “blood color” because of the optically masking effects of the penumbra. Humphreys’ and Waddington’s argument had failed to provide a viable variant to the established interpretation of the biblical literalists.

Bloomfield, A. E. (2002). The key to understanding revelation: An easily grasped structure of a complex book [p. 150]. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers. ISBN 0-7642-2593-6. Original printing 1959.

Hoyt, H. A. (1969). The end times [p. 12]. Chicago, IL: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2348-5.

Ruggles, C. (1990, June). Archaeoastronomy – the Moon and the crucifixion. Nature, 345(6277), 669-670.

Schaefer, B. E. (1990, March). Lunar visibility and the crucifixion. Royal Astonomical Society Quarterly Journal, 31(1), 53-67.

Schaefer, B. E. (1991, July). Glare and celestial visibility. Publications of the Astonomical Society of the Pacific, 103, 645-660.

Walvoord, J. F. (1999). Every prophecy of the bible [pp. 288-289]. Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Publishing. ISBN 1-56476-758-2.

The lunar eclipse model is not viable. Peter had used Joel to explain the behavior of individuals baptized in the Holy Ghost. The concerns Peter responded to were about the speaking in tongues phenomena and not about solar and lunar behavior.Tcisco (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these new references. What this means is that:

• From the scientific perspective, we now have a good set of "opposing view" references to Humphreys and Waddington's views. The question of who is "right" can not, of course, be decided by you or me within Wikipedia, and both view points need to be presented since these two groups are both respectable scientists. If you find a reference in which Humphreys and Waddington admit defeat, that will change the game, but until then both references need to be presented, based on Wikipedia policies. Therefore, I will add yoru references to the appropriate section.

• The religious debate as to what Saint Peter "really meant" when he spoke 2,000 years ago can go on for another 4,000 years among biblical scholars and is a separate issue from the scientific discussions. Those different views can of course be referenced as well.

In the mean time, the only fact that remains is that despite all their differences, what Schaefer and Humphreys/Waddington agree on is the date Friday April 3rd 33AD. That is an interesting agreement. Again, thanks for the new references. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the Crucifixion and lunar eclipse occur on a friday

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)

Here is a great website for calculating the exact times of all lunar eclipses for the first century. http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html just-emery (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some relevant notes about the dating method used for that website. [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendar.html] Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro

This is a message that Xandar left for me, when I asked his opinion (he knows much more theology).

This is a bit of a specialist subject and I don't have any references ready to hand. Conservative evangelical scholarship will most likely contain refutations of some of these statements. There may be some more neutral material as well. As for the passage: "The Gospel of Mark served as the source for the parallel scene in Matthew and Luke. In Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two. Mark's chronology of Jesus' crucifixion and death is apparently artificial, and the account of darkness has no claim to historicity." This is going too far in stating theory as fact. a) It is only a theory that Mark came first, or was copied by the other writers. b) "APPARENTLY artificial" is a weasel word. At worst it should say "some scholars consider it artifical," or "scholars such as x and why consider it artificial", and c) "has no claim to historicity" is an opinion, and is not even backed by the article text. Xandar 13:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Lead section as it currently stands gives too much priority to the extreme minority position that the crucifixion eclipse was a lunar eclipse instead of a solar eclipse. This is known as "pov-pushing". See Wikipedia:Lead section for information on how to construct a proper lead summary. 75.14.213.18 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The term lunar eclipse is only used once in the lead in one sentence. It has to be there since it is in the article as a section with complete references. Hence needs representation and is not a POV issue at all. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 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)

Not any more.... History2007 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkness=sunset

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)

Is this a personal opinion, or confirmed by scholars? History2007 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions of totality indicated the darkness of the crucifixion had commenced by noontime and had ceased around midday. According to the Roman time reckoning system that had been imposed upon Palestine during the first century, the sixth hour corresponded to midday, approximately noon, and the ninth hour corresponded to the afternoon, approximately 3:00 PM. The length of an hour during April would have approximated sixty minutes. Several scholars have agreed with this interpretation. See the discussions in Duncan, D.E. (1998). Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year [pp. 47-48]. New York, NY: Avon Books, Incorporated, and in Barnett, J. E. (1998). Time’s Pendulum – The Quest to Capture Time – From Sundials to Atomic Clocks [p. 45]. New York, NY: Plenum Press is a Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation.Tcisco (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were a lunar eclipse then according to http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html apr 35 of the year 31 had an eclipse lasting from 20:00 to 00:30. This agrees with a 3 year ministry begining in the 15th year of Tiberius (who began to rule in sept of the year 14. The 'second' year begining jan of the year 15). Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not a sandstorm?

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)

Orosius explicity indicates neither the Moon nor clouds had obscurred the sunlight. That statement is quoted in the Ancient Historians section of this article.Tcisco (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like Orosius supports a fully miraculous explanation, noting that the Moon was full but stating that the Sun was eclipsed. It lends no credence to silly ideas like that observers couldn't tell the difference between three minutes and three hours, or between the Sun and the Moon... While there is no scientific way to dispute someone's miracle, I find them more convincing when attested by observers than four centuries after the fact. The actual Gospel accounts (probably the source for all subsequent speculations anyway) don't go so far Wnt (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can debate it among ourselves as to what "we think", but in Wikipedia that matters not - what matters are solid references, not our opinions, even if we all agree on something on the talk page. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Overemphasis on 'eclipse' explanation

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)

Lunar eclipse: 20 % visible or invisible?

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)

Similar accounts of darkness: source

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)

Blogs are a no-no in Wikipedia. Go ahead and delete it. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crucifixion darkness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Well-written

• the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
• I haven't checked closely as to whether it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• A suggestion: how about putting the 3 gospel accounts in a table (at the moment the material is in 3 boxes)?

Verifiable with no original research

• I think referencing/citation could be better. I suggest a separate References section listing the books/sources used, and I like to use sfn style myself though it's not mandatory.
• some of the sources seem dubious to me - Bible Probe, for example. If anything said there is worth saying, it'll be repeated in more reliable sources.
• Just a point about structure: I'd incline towards grouping eclipses (both kinds) and "other naturalist explanations" together as "naturalistic explanations" - that and two other subheadings, "miracle" and "literary creation" shopuld cover everything (not sure that "literary creation is quite right, though).

Broad in its coverage

• I imagine "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" - I can't think of anything else;
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Pretty much, though I think it could explain a little more clearly that Matthew and Luke take their material from Mark - i.e., they're not independent witnesses to events, so that in fact we only have a single witness to this miracle, the Synoptics as a whole, which in turn raises the question of why John doesn't mention it). I also think the discussion of the theological aspects of the story is a bit brief.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• No idea.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• It's a very short article, so perhaps one illustration is enough. The tagging could be improved - images should be:

- 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)

Thanks for taking the time to review this, and for all the useful suggestions, most of which have been incorporated. I think I may introduce an extra section about the theological interpretations of the darkness story when I have time. --Rbreen (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the review going to be done? No comments in over a month? Wizardman 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crucifixion darkness/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

This article never links to Jesus (which is a featured article). I would recommend, in the first sentence, linking "Jesus" to Jesus and linking "was crucified" to Crucifixion of Jesus. :A good point, I have fixed this, although not sure readers will spot that there are 2 links, not one. The lead claims "Although ancient and medieval writers treated this as a miracle, modern writers tend to view it either as a literary invention or a natural phenomenon, such as a solar eclipse." I don't think it's true that modern writers tend to view it as non-miraculous; I think many people who wrote about crucifixion darkness in modern times believe it to have been a miracle. (Googling "crucifixion darkness" seems to confirm this.) I prefer the wording you use in the body: "A common view in modern scholarship..." I think the problem here is that it's quite difficult to pin down what people think, outside of the scholarly view. This is what Allison says: "Those defending the historicity of the darkness have become increasingly few, and their positions have often become rationalistic; that is, they have, even when professing a belief in miracles, appealed to clouds or sand storms or volcanic dust. No one any longer wants to urge that maybe the moon reversed its course." So, though you are right to say that not all writers view it as non-miraculous, it's also true that most who don't see it as a purely literary phenomenon do tend to favour a naturalistic explanation - they just see this as the miracle, rather than an extreme astronomical event which would have much wider repercussions. I may try rephrasing this to get this across.--Rbreen (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC) While I suspect an opinion survey would show substantial support for the view that the phenomenon was purely miraculous, I have no source for that, of course. We can only go with what the reliable sources say. I think the current wording "modern writers tend to view it..." is sufficient. Thanks for the explanation. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) In the Luke quote, you add a parenthetical "[or, the sun was eclipsed]", but this is not in the original Greek. It's a surmise by the translators of the NRSV, but it's not correct to attribute that to the author of Luke's gospel. Also, in the preceding sentence, you say "appearing to explain it as an eclipse", citing Loader. That's fine, but only if Loader says that Luke appears to explain the phenomenon as a eclipse. (I don't have access to the Loader source, so you'll have to check.) :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. There are a lot more than 2 extant Greek variants of Luke, but the best scholarly consensus version is the Nestle-Aland (27th edition), which I have in front of me. The Greek text says that "ESKOTISTHE HO HELIOS", which in Koine Greek means "the sun was darkened". There is a Greek term for eclipse, "EKLEIPSIS" (from which "eclipse" is derived), but this is not used in any ancient manuscript of Luke that I know about. – Quadell (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I meant that there were two versions of this piece of the text - as this essay by Daniel B. Wallace explains, the earliest text reads 'tou heliou eklipontos' which means "the sun's light failed" and is, I believe, the origin of the word 'eclipse' (I can't find where I read that, though). The majority reading appears to result from later attempts to skirt around the problem of Luke referring to an impossible eclipse. I notice, by the way, that Nestle-Aland 28 has the 'eklipontos' reading - online here. --Rbreen (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Wow! I stand corrected. I guess that's one the changes they made for the latest edition last year. (I've got to update my copy!) That's a tad embarrassing. Anyway, yeah, that uses "eklipontos" (originally meaning "was covered" or "was hidden", but in this context almost certainly referring to an actual eclipse), and if the latest Nestle-Aland prefers that reading, then that's as close to scholarly consensus as it gets. Thanks for looking into that. – Quadell (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC) I don't think "24 November, 29 CE" is a standard date format. fixed that.. I don't think the "See also" list is useful. Solar eclipse is already linked in the text, and Good Friday could be (in the "Biblical account" section). :I agree. Removed. "Some commentators have commented" is a little clunky. :Ouch! Yes, didn't see that. Fixed it. The citation regarding Matthew's provenance should come after "and using Mark as a source", rather than after "around the year 85 to 90". (Compare where the cite is for Luke's provenance.) I went ahead and did this. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC) You'll need a source for the claim that the pseudo-Dionysian works are not actually by Dionysius the Areopagite. It's hardly controversial, but to make it easier I have added a link to the actual writer which explains the confusion. The "Apocryphal writers" and "Ancient historians" sections have some very long paragraphs and two single-sentence paragraphs. It isn't clear why the text is broken up the way it is. It would be better to reparagraph. I went ahead and did this. If you don't like the way I paragraphed, please feel free to reposition any way you like. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC) When you mention their names, you should link to notable people, like Bradley E. Schaefer, David Henige, etc. I did this. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I think the section about Amos could be more effective if reworded. I have done so here. If you don't like my wording, feel free to alter it. There are many ways that the "Notes" and "References" sections could be improved. I can help with fixing these issues if you like. Footnote 8 gives the page number at the footnote itself with a colon. All others give the page numbers in the notes section. It would be better to be consistent. Then, in the notes, some refs use "page", some use "p.", some have pages in square brackets, some use "p." and "pp." incorrectly, etc. This should be done consistently. References should have ISBNs, and perhaps URLs, to help the reader find the material. On the other hand, URLs should not be provided to a Google Books entry if no preview is available (e.g. Note 17). It would be better if all books were in the references, for consistency. Many of the references have formatting errors. For instance, ref 16 has an odd "(,)", reference #1 needs spacing before the quote, reference 32 has a URL at the end, instead of at the title, etc. :Please fix anything you can; I have been working my way through the references but it's not an area I am knowledgeable about. Sure thing. I'll fiddle with it over the weekend. – Quadell (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I'm still working on this. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Done. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC) The direct quote "accompanying miracles become more fabulous..." isn't appropriate, because the writer isn't notable enough to be mentioned. Instead, it would be better to rewrite this in your own words. The quote works for me - author is from the University of Edinburgh, which is significant enough, I think, and he's not stating anything controversial.--Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Eh, okay. Stricken. – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC) I think it would be better to have the "Naturalistic explanations" section before the "Literary creation" section, since the "Literary creation" section contains refutations of naturalistic explanations. Yes, that makes sense, I will do that when I have a moment.--Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) There is material at Crucifixion of Jesus#Darkness that is not present here. Should any of that information be incorporated here? To be honest, I don't think so. A lot of that material was originally in this article, which was very much skewed towards the personal views of one editor. Some of the material has been retained but I have tried to shift the focus to reflect a broader view incorporating more scholarly viewpoints. That's fine then. Thanks for checking. – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Similarly, the "Miracle" section could be expanded to give notable, recent views that the event was miraculous. As above - finding such views is very difficult. There are plenty of writers who refer to it as a historic event - usually when seeking to prove the existence of Jesus - but they rarely explain what they think the phenomenon was. Even where they mention it as a miracle, it's not clear what kind of miracle they mean (eg whether naturalistic or not). Searching with Google Books finds no substantial recent books which support the miraculous view. As Allison says, "some now simply refuse to offer any explanation and simply stick with the text". In scholarly sources, I cannot find any. I looked in vain for a statement by the Vatican or the Southern Baptist Convention or some other major group. But I did find that the Reformation Study Bible (1998) in its commentary on Luke 23:44 says "This was a supernatural darkness," and the Dictionary of Bible Themes (2011?) lists Luke 23:44-45 among "Miracles involving natural darkness". Are these notable enough? I just think it does a disservice to have Sacrobosco as the most recent source for the idea that that the phenomenon was miraculous. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I take your point, but I think it reflects a shift in attitudes to miracles. I will have another look at how this can be fairly presented.--Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) You're right, that it reflects a shift in perspective regarding miracles in general. I may continue to work with you on the contents of this section in the future... but for the purpose of this review, there are no problems that would be impediments to GA status. (All the material is factual and supported by the sources, etc.) – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC) The many block quotes in the "Biblical account" section can be distracting for the reader. Consider using inline quotations, at least for the shorter (1 or 2 verses) quotes. (Note how this is handled at Jesus#Resurrection and ascension, for example.) Done now. In my opinion, the article looks much better now. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC) The "Naturalistic explanations" section could use an image of a solar eclipse (perhaps File:Solar eclipse 1999 4 NR.jpg?), with an appropriate caption (like "Some ancient writers, including Origen, speculated that a solar eclipse could have caused the reported darkness." It seems to me that the {{Gospel Jesus}} template should be moved up to the "Biblical account" section. That's been done. The first sentence and direct quote in "Literary creation" should be reworded. The Gospel of Mark should not be linked a second time, and I would make the quote inline. Consider this: A common view in modern scholarship is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event. Burton L. Mack, for instance, describes it as a fabrication by the author of the Gospel of Mark, while W. D. Davies and Dale Allison conclude "It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies". Done this - seems clearly an improvement. Similarly, the first sentence and direct quote in the second paragraph of "Interpretations" should be reworded. Consider this: Another approach has been to consider the theological meaning of the event. Some authors have interpreted the darkness as a period of mourning by the cosmos itself at the death of Jesus. The last sentence of "Ancient historians" should be reworded. What was the problem here? Was this because of the problem with the Luke text, discussed elsewhere?--Rbreen (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC) No, the content is great. I just mean that in terms of grammar or style, it can be improved. The multiple and unclearly-related comma clauses feel clunky to me. The sentence before it also could use some modification for stylistic purpose. I'll figure out a suggested wording and get back with you. – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I have attempted a reword with this edit. I hope it works for you. – Quadell (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC) At the end of the first paragraph of "Interpretations", the direct quote ("it is clear that...") is not notable, and not by a notable author. Instead, leave the quote out and use the cite after "humiliation of the crucifixion". Again, the author is Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton: [2], so quite notable, I would say. But I'm not comfortable with that opening anyway and will try and rewrite it. Fair enough, but the quote seems to come out of nowhere. Does this work for you? – Quadell (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Late addition: I forgot to mention, the lead is too short, per WP:LEAD. Its length will probably need to be doubled in order to adequately summarize all sections of the article. Fair enough, but I think I will attend to that when everything else is done. --Rbreen (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) The lead is now adequate. I have made minor improvements. – Quadell (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Terrific progress! Assuming my edits are acceptable to you, only the lead remains! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:04, 10 November 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)

AD vs. CE dating

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. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no good reason why New Testament related articles should use any particular dating system, except that it's traditional. I've removed most of the era notation anyway as unncessary except for a few that might be ambiguous. The article rewrite has brought in a lot more scholarly sources and we should consider using the more scholarly convention (eg Society of Biblical Literature), and also at being more inclusive. Let's see what other editors have to say. --Rbreen (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's see what other editors have to say. I think reverting it to CE dating when that is not the established style of the article was badly done. StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And "CE" is not the scholarly "convention" - Sheffield Academic Press, for example, calls it their "preference". If it was a convention, they would tell authors to use that style. In any case, the relevant guideline here is WP:ERA which says Either convention may be appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the most important thing is that the dates be accurate and unambiguous, and either format does that. I don't consider it a very important issue. However, my bias is that I am always extremely grateful to quality content creators; whenever someone adds a ton of sourced, encyclopedic content, I tend to go with whatever stylistic choices they prefer, just as a "thank you". (It's not always the best choice, but it suffices as a rule of thumb.) Regardless, I hope the more important issues with this article receive proportionally more attention. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Spurious sentence not in source

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, 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". 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)

Josephus wrote in Greek, and translations differ. At Wikisource, the link given, the section is translated "great wickedness towards the gods; for the sake of which we suppose it was that the sun turned away his light from us, as unwilling to view the horrid crime they were guilty of". The translation given in the article is what Fitzmyer cited; it can be found online at, for instance, [3]. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Can be found other significant prove he mentioned this in direct correlation to Jesus crucifixition? I cannot see where is a correlation with the crucifixion darkness. Sentence you cited is usual pagan thinking of those days and may be unrelated to the specific occurence of the miraculous solar eclipse during full moon. Did Josephus ever wrote this? Or was it changed by other scribers over centuries? And if he did so, did he wrote this with significant correlation to the crucifixition darkness only or to any other event? Did he believed in some, probably roman-greek "gods" instead of follow his Jewish origin? Moreover, did he believed that such "gods" were able to make that 3-hours darkness after Jesus death? I simply think that all this is only subjective conclusion and perhaps also citation given from Josephus writings in the article Crucifixion darkness may actually be unrelated to Crucifixion darkness and thus should be better to removed it. --89.176.48.220 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that accounts of the crucifixion darkness may be entirely unrelated to Josephus' description of the sun turning away from seeing vile deeds by Romans. But the article doesn't say that they are related. The article only says that "Fitzmyer compares the event to a contemporary description recorded in Josephus", which is both true and sourced. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Firstly I overlooked that this is only one scholar conclusion and that it is possible that original intended meaning been different than Fitzmayer´s. Also, the verification template was removed from the article. Thanks. --89.176.48.220 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's from the 1737 version by William Whiston. His version is here: [4] and here: [5]. Fitzmeyer is quoting from the more modern Loeb edition in 1961. You can see plenty of citations here: [6] Fitzmyer, naturally, tends to favour the more recent scholarly translation. --Rbreen (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

John said that the crucifixion was on Preparation Day

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)

"Preparation Day of Passover Week" could mean the Sabbath Day preparation (Friday) that occurs in the Passover week; not the preparation day for the Passover. StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)