Extra-Biblical Attestation for the Darkness During the Crucifixion.

Image via Wikipedia

 One of the challenges to the validity of the Bible in general and the accounts of the Gospels in particular is the point that the Bible reports that at the time of Jesus' crucifixion a darkness covered the area - as if the sun itself took notice of the horrible crime and refused to shine in  recognition. Let's look at the passage itself.

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - Matthew 23:45-46

At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - Mark 15: 33-34

It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.- Luke 23: 44-46

I want to point a couple of things. We have three mentions that the darkness was 3 hours long! Some have theorized that this was caused by a total solar eclipse. However total solar eclipses are rare and don't last long. The longest solar eclipse in the the 21st century was  July 22, 2009, clocking in at 6 minutes and 39 seconds. See the wikipedia article for confirmation. Skeptics argue that the darkness during the crucifixion could not have been a solar eclipse because of the length and there is not extrabiblical mention of the event of darkness. I agree that it wasn't an eclipse. Something miraculous happened. And as for other mentions of the event outside of the Bible there is evidence!

A historian from the first century AD  named Thallus is quoted by another historian named Julius Africanus who was a Christian  in the 3rd Century. Thallus was not a Christian. Here is the quote from Julius Africanus:

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. (XVIII.1)

 Julius Africanus understood Thallus to be referring to the same darkness the reports mention. Although we no longer have copies of Thallus's work, other refer to what he said. Before someone cries "Second-hand  evidence!", there is more. Historian Paul Mair wrote a novel of historical fiction called Pontius Pilate and in the foot note he wrote

So we have 3 contemporaneous accounts to the report of darkness covering much of the earth during Jesus' crucifixion: Tertullian, Phlegon, and Thallus.

I also want to say something about the criticism that the gospel accounts can't be harmonized. You have to remember that each Gospel was written to a different audience. Matthew was written to Jews and presents Jesus as King and Messiah. This is why Jesus' words "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" were recorded because in Jewish tradition one calls attention to a whole passage by quoting the first sentence. They would understand that Jesus was calling attention to Psalm 22, and pointing out that it was being fulfilled in front of them.  Luke didn't record those words but instead focused on something Jesus said that would mean something to the audience he was writing to - the Greeks. Luke's gospel show cases Jesus' humanity. We see that Jesus was really a man. This may also be why in Luke we get the most information about Jesus' birth and humanity. Mark included this part because it is written from interviewing Peter. who was Jewish. Mark differs between Matthew and Luke and John because it is based on action. We get little background but instead we get a focus on what Jesus did. We get to see Jesus as servant. I call Mark the "Michael Bay" of the four Gospels. John tells us in his gospel that his goal is to present enough information to let the reader know that Jesus is the only way to salvation, so he didn't always present or record everything the other four did.


Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ pages 60-61

Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.

Added Note:  Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian, (ca. 160 – ca. 220 AD) was really not a 1st Century Christian but a  second. Sorry for any confusion.