Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history?
First published: 6 April 2007 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 10 April 2020 (GMT+10)
The preternatural darkness reported at Jesus’ crucifixion was no metaphor. It was a real historical event based on eyewitness accounts and independently corroborated by a number of highly qualified ancient historians. And just as the darkness recorded in the gospels was based on real history, the reason for Jesus’s death is rooted in the real history recorded in the Book of Genesis.
According to a straightforward interpretation of Genesis as written and intended, there was a real Adam and a real Eve, a real Garden of Eden, a real fall into sin, and real consequences to wilful rebellion against the Creator. Death, suffering, disease, natural disasters, and sin were the real outcomes of the historical Fall in the garden (see also The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe). We live with the indisputable evidence of these historical events on a daily basis.
With its very foundation built upon the historical events of Genesis, Jesus’ atoning death was God’s historical antidote to mankind’s grievous sin. The God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ willingly died a brutal and humiliating death on the cross in order to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, for our sins, and for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)—available by grace, through faith in God’s promised sacrificial Lamb (Ephesians 2:8–9).
During the last three hours of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, an eerie darkness struck the land. This darkness is documented by the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is also confirmed by three extra-biblical historians: Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus. A closer look will reveal strong historical evidence for this unparalleled event.
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Each of these authors briefly records the three-hour darkness during Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 27:45,
Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44–45). Matthew was one of Jesus’ apostles and an eyewitness to the event. Mark was a close companion of Peter, one of Christ’s three innermost apostles. Mark also travelled with Paul, Luke, and many of the earliest Christians in the Book of Acts. Luke was a Greek physician and historian who carefully investigated the events of Christ’s life. His historical investigation was based on direct and indirect eyewitness accounts from Paul, Peter, James, Mark, Mary (the mother of Jesus), and many of Jesus’ first female followers.1 Luke is considered to be one of the most reliable historians of all time.1
J.A.T. Robinson, a liberal New Testament scholar, conducted an in-depth study in which he discovered strong historical, textual, and logical evidence for dating all of the gospels betweenAD40–65.2 And Robinson was no friend of conservative biblical Christianity. Based on these dates, Matthew, Mark, and Luke would have written about the darkness a mere 7 to 32 years after the actual event.3 Compared to other ancient historical accounts, this is like a news flash. Suetonius, a Roman historian, wrote his account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event, and it is considered to be generally reliable.4 The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death, and they are considered trustworthy accounts.1 (Compare also Who was Luke and what did he write?)
Even more compelling is the fact that Rudolph Pesch, the German New Testament scholar, dates the source for Mark’s passion narrative no later thanAD37 based on language, style, grammar, and personal references.5 This is a maximum of four years after the actual event! It can be conclusively stated that the Gospel accounts of the darkness at the crucifixion are extremely early, reliable, and based on eyewitnesses.
Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus
Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in aboutAD52.6 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.
Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology aroundAD137:
In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e.,AD33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’7
Phlegon provides powerful confirmation of the Gospel accounts. He identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:51). However, like Thallus, he fallaciously attempts to interpret the darkness as a direct effect of a solar eclipse.
Africanus composed a five volume History of the World aroundAD221. He was also a pagan convert to Christianity. His historical scholarship so impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus that Africanus was entrusted with the official responsibility of building the Emperor’s library at the Pantheon in Rome. Africanus writes:
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.8
Africanus rightly argues that a solar eclipse could not have occurred during the lunar cycle of the Passover, as this diagram shows. He also questions the link between an eclipse, an earthquake, and the miraculous events recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. Eclipses do not set off earthquakes and bodily resurrections. We also know that eclipses only last for several minutes, not three hours. For Africanus, naturalistic explanations for the darkness at the crucifixion were grossly insufficient, as he showed by applying real science.
Local or global?
Many have pondered whether or not the darkness was a regional or global phenomenon. A vast majority of biblical translations records that the darkness was ‘over the land’, ‘over all the land’, or ‘over the whole land’. However, some translations of Luke’s account state the darkness was ‘over all the earth’ or ‘over the whole earth’.
The Greek has the usual word for earth, gē,9 here, from which we derive ‘geology’. The language of most translations appears to strongly suggest that the darkness was a local or regional phenomenon, which is a possible rendition in some contexts. All the same, if it was regional, it was over an extensive region. Dr Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, notes ‘This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities.’7
On the other hand, Africanus writes of the darkness as a global event. Tertullian, the famous second century apologist, also hails the darkness as a ‘cosmic’ or ‘world event’. Appealing to skeptics, he wrote:
At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day.10
Apparently, Tertullian could state with confidence that documentation of the darkness could be found in legitimate historical archives.
It is plausible that future archaeological discoveries could lend stronger support to the notion that the darkness was indeed witnessed throughout the entire world.
Why aren’t there more sources?
Many skeptics ask why John’s Gospel does not mention the darkness at the crucifixion. Simon Greenleaf, of Harvard Law School, said it best about the gospels:
There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independent narrators of the same great transaction.11
In other words, independent narrators will sometimes record different secondary details about the same exact event.
Many skeptics also ask why other early historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger fail to mention the darkness. But the skeptics are committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. It is unreasonable to expect every contemporary writer to include every event that happened—and there are good reasons not to expect these specific authors to mention the darkess (see Thallus: Darkness Rules). What we do have is a plethora of extremely early, historically reliable, and highly respected sources for the darkness during the crucifixion. The list of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thallus, Phlegon, Africanus, and Tertullian is impressive indeed!
Conclusion
There is powerful evidence for the historicity of the darkness at Christ’s crucifixion. It was a real historical event, and its very existence was rooted in the real historical events in Genesis. As the last Adam
(1 Corinthians 15:45), Christ came to suffer the horrible and ignominious death of crucifixion in order to die for the sins of the world. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).’
References
- Craig, William Lane, The Evidence for Jesus, 2005; see also Luke: A consideration of Gospel authorship and publication date. Return to text.
- Robinson, John A.T., Redating the New Testament, Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2000. Return to text.
- Cf. Wenham, John, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, IVP, 1992; see review. Return to text.
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars 1:31–33,AD121. Return to text.
- Strobel, L. The Case for Christ, p. 220, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998. Return to text.
- Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus, pp. 196-7, College Press Publishing Company, 1996. Return to text.
- Maier, Paul. Pontius Pilate (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1968), p. 366. Phlegon’s citation is a fragment from Olympiades he Chronika 13, ed. Otto Keller, Rerum Naturalium Scriptores Graeci Minores, 1 (Leipzig Teurber, 1877), p. 101.
Return to text. - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html Return to text.
- The Greek phrase in Luke 23:44 is καί σκότος εγένετο έφ ‘όλην τήν γήν (kai skotos egeneto eph holēn tēn gēn), ‘and darkness came upon the whole earth’. Return to text.
- Sanders, Oswald. The Incomparable Christ, p. 203, Moody Publishers, 1982. Return to text.
- Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists, vii, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
We say something like: “The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great … written over 400 years after his death … are considered trustworthy …” and the “… account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon (written) at least 110 years after the event … is considered to be generally reliable.” In contrast, “...Matthew, Mark, and Luke would have written about the darkness a mere 7 to 32 years after the actual event. Compared to other ancient historical accounts, this is like a news flash.”
Here’s the counterargument I anticipate a biblioskeptic might provide for justifying the apparent double-standard of their acceptance of non-biblical history (despite relatively poor evidence) while not accepting the Bible (despite its superior manuscript evidence):
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Bible describes extraordinary events that require breaking the laws of physics (i.e. miracles) whereas the historians of Caesar & Alexander the Great do not. Also, the consequences of accepting a potentially inaccurate account of Caesar’s life are negligible while the consequences of accepting the Bible's accounts are infinitely weightier. So there’s simply no harm in assuming the account of Caesar is true because it basically doesn’t matter if it isn’t. The same cannot be said of the Bible.
I think this counterargument has some merit so I often avoid the above line of reasoning but I'd love to hear if there's something I’m missing. Sorry that this is kind of a question rather than just a comment.
So the only thing left for the biblioskeptic is their double standard about the miraculous content. But G.K. Chesterton astutely pointed out:
Note that atheists must believe some things on (blind) faith, as explained in Atheism is more rational? For example, here are Five Atheist miracles showing that materialists really believe in magic.
Then it might be that Christ’s journey to hell was to liberate and take captive to captivity in heaven. It says that the shedding of blood is for the remission of sins. And the references to Christ’s death could be for the time of separation between God the Father and God the Son. As eternal death of humans is the separation of humans from God.
I published an article in the 1994 Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism.
Available on their site titled, “The Canopy, the Moon, the Earth's Tilt, and Pre-Flood Ice Age” by Greg Jorgensen. There I give good evidence that the darkness could have been a close encounter with a Planet (see Fig 10). Also there is evidence that the Romans observed what they described as a second moon. (See “Did earth have two moon”, NASA’s Unexplained Files Season 4 episode 6.)
The paper was reasonable given the creationist understanding of 26 years ago, but much has happened since then. The canopy theory has largely been abandoned by creationists for both biblical and scientific reasons, most creationist geologists believe in a single post-Flood ice age caused by the Genesis Flood, and that the earth’s axis must have always been tilted because there were seasons from Day 4 and would have been almost impossible to change by very much.
Although Luke only says Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his public ministry, 30 was the usual age for a priest to take up his official duties, so I very much doubt that Luke was out by more than a year or two, if at all. I suggest that, if people are searching for records of period of unnatural darkness, in ancient documents from around the world, they would do better to start looking in the late 20s AD.
Yours in “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13),
The Irish sources should first be checked for an indication of this difference in local time. If this indication is found, the Irish sources would be independent—at least to some extent—of the Biblical record; if the Irish time is given as noon, the story is probably copied from the Scriptures.
The Modern Irish versions of this story have the title of Oidheadh Conchubhair—Old Irish spelling Aided Conchubair—i.e. the Fate of Conchubar. The pious legend(?) claims that Conchubar asks his druids (Celtic pagan priests) what this darkness meant and he was told that in a distant land a righteous King was being slain by His enemies. Conchubar, on his physician's advice, was being kept quiet due to an old war injury, but he immediately jumped up, seized his sword and mounted his horse. He then rushed the a nearby wood, hacking at the trees with his sword to show what he would do to Christ's enemies, but his battle wound burst open and he bled to death.
Another imperial edict made a short time later, referring to the same eclipse, said:
Even more incredibly, a commentary in the Record of the Latter Han Dynasty said simply:
These quotes are from Faith of our Fathers: God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong and Charlene Fu, pages 317–8.
This is powerful historical evidence both for the darkness and its global scope. As the article above says it couldn't have been an eclipse because it was passover but this is how the ancients explained the phenomenon.
Best regards.
This is a prophecy of that darkness. not brought about naturally but by the direct intervention of God
So I have often wondered that when (“This darkness came to pass and the earthquake took place”) was it possible that creation itself knew that its CREATOR was dying (on our behalf) as a result of our sin. Somehow it just makes sense to me. Again it’s just something I have wondered about for several yrs. I know at Christ’s return the world will be filled w/the knowledge of The Lord and be returned to the beauty it once enjoyed when GOD created the heavens and the earth. Today it groans for this curse placed upon it to be freed from the decay it is going through now.
Again folks it’s just a thought of mine that I wonder about at times.
Keep up the good work. GOD has blessed you people to do this work as you reveal the truth of GOD’S WORD and expose the falsehoods of evolution that the world is being indoctrinated with today.
VIA CON DIAS as you continue this good work.
I am thinking with respect to your question about whether the Maya would have documented the darkness that it might be a question of time fo day in the western hemisphere. Noon in Jerusalem would be 8 hours earlier by modern timezone accounting, putting the start of the 3 hour window at roughly 4am in eastern Mexico, through 7am. According to one website, sunrise today (Good Friday) was 632 am in Cancun, Mexico. Given shifts in calendar accounting over the last 2000 years, this is not a perfect indicator. But based on this, the Maya might only have detected 30 minutes of unusual solar phenomenon before it lifted. While still about 25 mins longer than a typical solar eclipse duration, it may not have grabbed the attention of Mayan sky watchers as much as it would have elsewhere during solar daylight during that window of time. But it would be fascinating to search their records for such evidence, regardless.
Brooks lived through the Great Fire of London. Perhaps some ancient writings were lost in that fire.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.