aa5874

And the event, in the books called Matthew, Mark and Luke is not an eclipse. The darkness from an eclipse typical only last for seconds or the most a few minutes over a given location. The darkness in the synoptics lasted for about three hours, that is definitely not an eclipse,but may be as a result of a volcanic eruption perhaps.

So, I agree that Thallus, Africanus or Eusebius erred in refering to the this event as an eclipse.

Cege

Just a layperson's observation, but I never thought of the "darkness" described around Jesus' death in the gospels was meant to describe something like an eclipse. I always thought it was meant to describe a supernatural event of darkness at least as complete as a moonless night.

Chili

The darkness existed only in the mind of Jesus who alone had the capacity to convert sun rays into light. Magdalene cannot do this without a mind of her own and must be illuminated by either Jesus or the other Mary who actually is the source of light wherefore knowledge illuminates to make Magdalene the temple tramp in the mind of Jesus.

Just take this one step further and go to Rev. 22:5 which itself is contingent upon the sea gone in Rev.21:1.

I really don't want anybody to choke on this, but yes, Mary is the source of light on the seventh day which is the day that evening did not follow as it did on the first six days . . . which does not mean that she is the light but only the source of light that make up the heavens above.

Roger Pearse

That is what Africanus says.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

The event descibed in the synoptics is not an eclipse.

Who's fooling who?

Roger Pearse

So Africanus says. He tells us that Thallus says otherwise.

?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Well, with respect to the OP and the post from Pavlos, it appears that the authors of the 'darkness story,' in the synoptics, did not write about an historical event and this severly undermines the credibility of an historical Jesus.

Perhaps, the authors thought they made a wise decision to include such an incredible event.

lee_merrill

Kudos to Mr. Pearse, I have not the patience to do this sort of line-by-line response, any more, not that I know this area very well, but I appreciate the attention to real details. Not to mention, the insistence on them from others.

And so forth, and there is forthwith more wailing and throwing dust in the air in reply. Such responses would indicate a good argument, on your part, and a lack of such, on theirs...

Regards,
Lee

lee_merrill

Well, why not? (in the vein of Mr. Pearse)

I might write it appears they did write about a historical event, for people who speak of eclipses generally don't make such up for a lark.

However, such an obvious event everyone would notice would not be good to invent! Let's say we read that there was darkness over the land for an hour when WWII ended. Would this be a good invention now? Well, no, for it would have been noticed if it happened, and would discredit my testimony if it didn't, and this could be easily verified.

The fact(!) that we have independent reference to such darkness is indeed strong evidence of the authenticity of the gospel account.

spin

Well, at least that's what Syncellus says.

As you know he cites Julius Africanus who cites Thallus, but can you say what Thallus actually wrote or what he was actually referring to? You've seen how Origen can get confused about what Josephus actually said and about whom. What Origen says about what Josephus says doesn't match the current text. Did Syncellus accurately report Africanus? If so did he accurately report Thallus? Assuming this last for argument's sake, did Africanus know exactly what Thallus was talking about?


spin