Crucifixion Darkness and Eclipse - Historicity

Historicity

During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was “too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.” His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John. One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:

"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".

In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two. Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama. To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints. The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun. The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.