Peter Gainsford: 1/10. Early Christians sometimes had a taste for naturalistic explanations of things that we today would regard as supernatural. A topical example: Luke 23.45 specifically and explicitly states that the darkness at Jesus' death was a solar eclipse.

1/10. Early Christians sometimes had a taste for naturalistic explanations of things that we today would regard as supernatural. A topical example: Luke 23.45 specifically and explicitly states that the darkness at Jesus' death was a solar eclipse.

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 23:44-45 (THGNT)www.biblegateway.com Καὶ ἦν ἤδη ὡσεὶ ὥρα ἕκτη, καὶ σκότος ἐγένετο ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος. ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ

2/10. Or in Greek: τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος. Modern translations are very coy about translating this accurately, for reasons which you might already be able to spot. The other gospels just say that there was a darkness (Mark 15.33, Matthew 27.45).

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 15:33 (THGNT)www.biblegateway.com Καὶ γενομένης ὥρας ἕκτης σκότος ἐγένετο ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης.

3/10. In the 2nd century, it seems some Christians drew on this supposed eclipse as a way of pinpointing the date of Jesus' death. This mattered, because of a dispute over the correct date to celebrate Easter. But it was difficult, because they didn't have any better chronological data than we do.

4/10. Solutions were sought in -- - Numerology: Jesus' ministry lasted 12 months to the day, one for each apostle! - Historiographical debate: how many Passovers were there in Jesus' ministry? - Astronomy: a pagan source, Phlegon, reported a solar eclipse in 29 CE. That must be when Jesus died!

5/10. By the 3rd century, they realised some problems with the eclipse solution. Passover is at full moon; solar eclipses happen at new moon. There's more. The 29 CE eclipse was in November, nowhere near Passover; solar eclipses don't last three hours. These points weren't noticed in antiquity.

6/10. Even so, the realisation was very strong. Tertullian (ca. 200 CE) and Julius Africanus (220s) give specific explanations of why the eclipse interpretation doesn't work. By the 400s, many manuscripts of Luke 23.45 were altered to remove the reference to an eclipse.

7/10. It hung on in some quarters: Origen (ca. 250) and Eusebius (early 300s) both explain the darkness as an eclipse. (Some modern apologists opt for a lunar eclipse instead. No ancient writers try to get away with that. They agree it happened at midday, and Luke says it was a solar eclipse!)

LUKE 23.45 says, 'The light from the sun was gone. And suddenly, the curtain in the sanctuary of the Temple was torn down the middle.' See - www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea... This statement does not explicitly state that this dimming or darkening of the sun was caused by a total solar eclipse.

Luke 23:45 (NLT)www.biblegateway.com The light from the sun was gone. And suddenly, the curtain in the sanctuary of the Temple was torn down the middle.

It does: the Greek phrase τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος is very, very explicit. Modern translators have an aversion to translating it accurately, for reasons that may occur to you. This is the specific reason why so many 3rd-4th century writers talk about a solar eclipse. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...

If it helps, a few days back I looked through a bit over 200 ancient collocations with the noun ἥλιος ('sun') governing various forms of the verb ἐκλείπω ('depart, be eclipsed'). They were all without exception about solar eclipses. Including occurrences in ancient Christian exegesis of Luke 23.45.

A normal eclipse at the full moon (Passover) is impossible. Nor did anyone at the time record a universal planetary darkness. Origen suggests that enemies of the Church came up with the eclipse idea and inserted it into Luke, most copies of which have ἐσκοτίσθη www.textkit.com/greek-latin-...

Only from the fifth century onwards. Every earlier manuscript, without exception, has the eclipse, as do all pre-5th century reports of the text. Origen doesn't rejecting the eclipse and doesn't mention enemies of the church there: the preface, in English, doesn't reflect Origen's text accurately.

...on the contrary, there and in Against Celsus 2.33 and 2.59 he cites the eclipse favourably. So does Eusebius. I'm not sure it makes sense to speak of 'counter to the biblical narrative' when Luke expressly has a solar eclipse at Passover. This is why modern translations mistranslate Luke!

Thanks for that information. I was not previously aware of it. Obviously speaking about the darkness of the sun being caused by a total solar eclipse runs counter to the Biblical narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus occurring during Passover.

Post