Talk:Crucifixion eclipse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Judaism Portal
Crucifixion eclipse is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:[1]

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:[2]

:The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come (Joel 2:31).'

Jeffrey indicated the solar darkening predicted in Revelation 6:12 will be caused by an act of God like the blackout that had accompanied the crucifixion.[3] Lockyer connected Joel 2:31 and the crucifixion darkness with an aspect of Christian eschatology through the statement: "Such darkening of the sun was an earnest of 'the great and terrible day of the Lord'."[4]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)