Talk:Crucifixion darkness

Spurious sentence not in source

Hello all,

I put "not in source" template to this sentence. ..... Fitzmyer compares the event to a contemporary description recorded in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, which recounts "unlawful acts against the gods, from which we believe the very sun turned away, as if it too were loath to look upon the foul deed". Such sentence is not in the source given, neither anything with similar meaning in source. --89.176.48.220 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Josephus wrote in Greek, and translations differ. At Wikisource, the link given, the section is translated "great wickedness towards the gods; for the sake of which we suppose it was that the sun turned away his light from us, as unwilling to view the horrid crime they were guilty of". The translation given in the article is what Fitzmyer cited; it can be found online at, for instance, [1]. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's from the 1737 version by William Whiston. His version is here: [2] and here: [3]. Fitzmeyer is quoting from the more modern Loeb edition in 1961. You can see plenty of citations here: [4] Fitzmyer, naturally, tends to favour the more recent scholarly translation. --Rbreen (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

John said that the crucifixion was on Preparation Day

The article says that the Gospel of John says that the crucifixion took place on Passover, citing William Barclay's book (which I don't have). John 19:14 says that it was Preparation Day of Passover Week, however. Dwschulze (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Dating of the gospels.

The article currently states the date of composition of Matthew as a fact, relying on Harrington. The Gospel of Matthew article, however, carefully following its own source, says most scholars favour 80–90. This is the date and the wording we should use here. (This probably means splitting the sentence in two.) Similarly, the date of Mark's gospel is stated as fact (70) whereas the Gospel of Mark article says "probably around AD 60–70". And it's the same situation with Luke, though the dating of that gospel has even less consensus. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have reworded for neutrality, using Scholz as a source, though other sources have slight variance of the dates that "most scholars think" the gospels were written. Perhaps we could give a longer bracket (e.g. 80-90 for Matthew). StAnselm (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps another solution is available

One wonders what on earth could explain the darkness described in the gospels about the crucifixion and yet seemed to be confirmed by pagan sources as well. The description that it occurred across the entire earth and that passover occurs during the full moon eliminate the possibility of a total solar eclipse in regards to the coverage and amount of time involved. The gospels also describe tombs opening and the earth quaking. Standard explanations for this seem to defy the evidence as well. So what caused it.

One argument is that is never occurred. I offer an alternative. It did occur, hence the reporting of it, and the confirmation by other sources. If a very large asteroid or planetoid passed between the earth and the sun, and the pass was close enough it would not only darken the sun for a period, and depending on it trajectory it could have darkened it for hours. As it passed close to the earth its gravitational distortion of space/time (gravity field) could of disrupted the earths mantle/crust sufficiently to cause tremors and quakes.

Not being a deep investor in such coincidence, then the moments of the crucifixion and the passing of this large mass in space at the same time would appear to be coordinated, requiring much more knowledge of the heavens than we currently even possess. If this argument has weight, then the appearance of this large asteroid would herald just spiritual changes, but would effect the earth physically as well. If this asteroid in fact existed and is the explanation for what happened, being the beginning of a change in our understanding of God, then might it also be the same planet killing Asteroid that will herald the end on its next pass, whenever that may be.(open speculation)

This event may be verifiable should astronomers, astrophysicist, geologist, and climate archeologist know what evidence to look for.

Science and Religion aren't at war with each other, if you simply view science as the explanation of how God works. §§72.251.170.140 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)