Crucifixion darkness

A number of accounts in apocryphal literature built on the accounts of the crucifixion darkness. The Gospel of Peter, probably from the second century, expanded on the canonical gospel accounts in creative ways. As one writer puts it, "accompanying miracles become more fabulous and the apocalyptic portents are more vivid".[20] In this version, the darkness which covers the whole of Judaea leads people to go about with lamps believing it to be night.[21] The fourth century Gospel of Nicodemus describes how Pilate and his wife are disturbed by a report of what had happened, and the Judeans he has summoned tell him it was an ordinary solar eclipse.[22] Another text from the fourth century, the purported Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius, claimed the darkness had started at the sixth hour, covered the whole world, and during the subsequent evening the full moon resembled blood for the entire night.[23] In a fifth- or sixth-century text by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the author claims to have observed a solar eclipse from Heliopolis at the time of the crucifixion.[24]

No contemporary references to this darkness have been found outside of the New Testament.[25]

Tertullian, in his Apologeticus of AD 197, referred to the biblical crucifixion darkness and claimed that an independent account of the omen was held in the Roman archives: "And yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives."[26]

In AD 248, the crucifixion darkness story was used by the Christian apologist Origen as an example of the biblical account being supported by non-Christian sources: when the pagan critic Celsus claimed that Jesus could hardly be a God because he had performed no great deeds, Origen responded, in Against Celsus, by recounting the darkness, earthquake and opening of tombs. As proof that the incident had happened, Origen referred to a description by Phlegon of Tralles of an eclipse, accompanied by earthquakes felt in other parts of the Empire during the reign of Tiberius (probably that of AD 29).[27] In his Commentary on Matthew, however, Origen offered a different approach. Answering criticisms that there was no mention of this incident in any of the many non-Christian sources, he insisted that it was local to Palestine, and therefore would have gone unnoticed outside. To suggestions it was merely an eclipse, Origen pointed out that this was impossible and suggested other explanations, such as heavy clouds, drawing only on the accounts given in Matthew and Mark, which make no mention of the Sun.[28]

In the ninth century, the Byzantine historian George Syncellus quoted from the third-century Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus, who remarked that "Thallos dismisses this darkness as a solar eclipse".[29] It is not known when the chronicler Thallus lived, and it is unclear whether he himself made any reference to the crucifixion.[30]

In the Huarochirí Manuscript Spanish cleric Francisco de Ávila records

In all the stories and fables of these people I have never been able to make out which came first, or in what order they should be placed, for they are all very ancient traditions. They relate that, a long time ago, the sun disappeared and the world was dark for a space of five days; that the stones knocked one against the other; and that the mortars, which they call mutca, and the pestles called marop, rose against their masters, who were also attacked by their sheep, both those fastened in the houses and those in the fields. This p. 132 may have been the eclipse which occurred when our Redeemer died; but I cannot clearly make this out, for when it was day in that hemisphere it was night here, so that here the eclipse would have taken place at night. The rest of the story consists of lies, for, as these people had no watches, how could they tell that the sun was absent for five days, seeing that we count days by the absence and presence of the sun?

In El señorío de los Incas, the second part of the Chronicle of Peru, Pedro Cieza de León retells stories from the natives regarding Ticiviracocha (Viracocha). It describes a people that existed before the Incas that experienced a period of suffering without light. The people prayed and the sun rose from Lake Titicaca. Toward midday, a white man of great authority and veneration came, turning hills into plains and plains into hills, making fountains from stones, calling him the Maker of all things, originator of them, Father of the sun, and who caused animals and men to be.

In the Book of Mormon which the Latter Day Saint movement claims as scripture, an account is given of a period of darkness in the New World (Western Hemisphere) at the time of Christ's crucifixion and death. It is recorded as three days of darkness after a period of extreme storms and devastation.[31] Following the 3 days of darkness an account is given of the visit of the resurrected Jesus Christ to the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.[32]

Because it was known in ancient and medieval times that a solar eclipse could not take place during Passover (solar eclipses require a new moon while Passover only takes place during a full moon), it was considered a miraculous sign rather than a naturally occurring event.[33] The astronomer Johannes de Sacrobosco wrote, in his The Sphere of the World, "the eclipse was not natural, but, rather, miraculous and contrary to nature".[34] Modern writers who regard this as a miraculous event tend either to see it as operating through a natural phenomenon—such as volcanic dust or heavy cloud cover—or avoid explanation completely.[35] The Reformation Study Bible, for instance, simply states "This was a supernatural darkness."[36]

Khamsin dust storm in Egypt in 2007

The Gospel of Luke account states "and the sun was darkened"[37] However, the biblical details do not accord with an eclipse: a solar eclipse could not have occurred on or near the Passover, when Jesus was crucified, and would have been too brief to account for three hours of darkness. The maximum possible duration of a total solar eclipse is seven minutes and 31.1 seconds.[38] The only total eclipse visible in Jerusalem in this era occurred late in the year AD 29, on 24 November at 11:05 AM.[39] Around the Sea of Galilee, it would have been visible for just one minute and forty-nine seconds.[40]

Some writers explained the crucifixion darkness in terms of sunstorms, heavy cloud cover, or the aftermath of a volcanic eruption.[41] A popular work of the nineteenth century described it as an 'oppressive gloom' and suggested this was a typical phenomenon related to earthquakes.[42]

In his 2011 book, unlike his 1983 paper, Humphreys accepted that Luke was referring to the Sun, and proposed a khamsin dust storm that tends to occur from March to May and typically obscures the sun for several hours.[43]

In 1983, Colin Humphreys and W. G. Waddington noted that the reference to a solar eclipse is missing in some versions of Luke and argued that the reported sun's darkness could be accounted for by confusion with a partial lunar eclipse that had taken place on 3 April AD 33: lunar eclipses can last much longer than solar ones.[44] In other words, Humphreys and Waddington speculated that the apparent reference in Luke's Gospel to a solar eclipse could have been the result of a scribe wrongly amending Luke's original text. This is a claim that historian David Henige described as "indefensible".[11] Astronomer Bradley E. Schaefer moreover stated that the lunar eclipse would not have been visible in Jerusalem during daylight hours.[45][46]

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 Mack describes it as a fabrication by the author of the Gospel of Mark,[47] while G. B. Caird and Joseph Fitzmyer conclude that the author did not intend the description to be taken literally.[48][49] W. D. Davies and Dale Allison similarly 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".[50]

The image of darkness over the land would have been understood by ancient readers as a cosmic sign, a typical element in the description of the death of kings and other major figures by writers such as Philo, Dio Cassius, Virgil, Plutarch and Josephus.[51] Géza Vermes describes the darkness account as "part of the Jewish eschatological imagery of the day of the Lord. It is to be treated as a literary rather than historical phenomenon notwithstanding naive scientists and over-eager television documentary makers, tempted to interpret the account as a datable eclipse of the sun. They would be barking up the wrong tree".[52]