John Loftus posted an argument that Dr Richard Carrier has included in his upcoming book, claiming that the Bible's truthfulness is discredited by the claim that Darkness covered the world for three hours while Jesus was alive and on the cross and there is no other record of it happening. Here is what Loftus posted.
I've received an uncorrected advance reading copy of Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I'll say more about it later after I've finished reading it. But he highlights a serious problem for inerrantists that I'd like to share. In chapter three he evaluates the claim of the gospels that at the death of Jesus "there was darkness over the whole world from the sixth hour until the ninth" (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44-45). If it was meant to be taken literally per Luke, who claims it was an eclipse of the sun ("...for the sun stopped shining"), it could not have happened.
Why? Because a three hour eclipse over the whole world is scientifically impossible. They only last a few minutes, not three hours. They do not cover the whole earth at the same time either, since they only cover parts of it as earth revolves. An eclipse additionally could not have occurred during the Passover, for the Passover was always celebrated during the full moon. This means the moon was on the opposite side of the earth from the sun at that time. Lastly, the entire world at the time had its astrologer/astronomers and not one of them mentioned it. Carrier writes, "This is a slam dunk argument...establishing beyond any reasonable doubt the non-historicity of this solar event."
One of the comments on the post bears careful scrutiny because it attempts to deal with Christian answers to the objection Carrier and Loftus are trying to run up the proverbial flag pole:
extian
I have indeed heard this defense against the charge that the darkness did not happen. Ironically, extian states the argument better than Loftus does. .Three of the four gospels say it did. Let's look at the passages.
33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. - Mark 15:3345 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. - Matthew 27:4544 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. - Luke 23:44-45
The sun not shining is definitely not an eclipse. I would not go that far as throwing out the account. I think that no one has enough data to say that it didn't happen and therefore throwing out the Gospels is not just not warranted but silly. I'm amazed how much much weight is being given to Dr Richard Carrier. Loftus does not make it clear whether he is stating that the darkness was caused by an eclipse or is it just him saying that. Either way, it greatly undermines the argument against the Gospel accounts because none of them say it was an eclipse.
Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus
I think that no one has enough data to say that it didn't happen...
ReplyDeleteWow, simply wow...
Well, prove it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteHow would one do that? How would one prove Noah didn't live on Pangaea? You can't prove it, and that's the point.
ReplyDeleteYou can't prove it, and that's the point.
ReplyDeleteThen you can't claim that it didn't happen. Thank you!
Marcus, with that attitude, and you may not realize this, but you can't claim that anything didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteRyan, Probability is really subjective. How do you even weigh how one explanation is more probable than another given that we know things that we previously thought that was improbable still happen despite what we think. I'm not suggesting that everything is up for grabs when considering if something is true or not. Either it is or it isn't. Either the sun stopped shining while Jesus was suffering on the cross or not. Two things we know for sure: 1. It wasn't an eclipse and the Bible dose not say it was an eclipse. 2. Jesus was crucified. Other than that you can't dogmatically assert that that the darkness did not happen. You have no evidence proving that it didn't happen. All you have is a lack of evidence that you want to show that it did. honesty should preclude you from saying that it didn't happen because you don't think so. If you wanna say you don't think it's probable (throwing out the Biblical evidence) - fine. But remember that is just your opinion - which you can't demonstrate is true.
ReplyDeleteProbability is not subjective. I think what you meant to say was that probability becomes imprecise when applied to the study of history.
ReplyDeleteI'll grant that we know for "sure" there wasn't an eclipse on or around passover in 33CE. I won't grant that we know for "sure" Jesus was crucified. We have account that claim he was and we conclude it's likely.
You have no evidence proving that it didn't happen.
We have a lack of worldwide and local corroboration. That is evidence that it did not happen.
Now, if you are going to claim that it got cloudy (as could be read into Mark and Matthew), then fine. But Luke says something else, a whole lot else mind you.
But if you're going to claim "goddidit" and it was a local phenomenon that no one Josephus et al ever spoke with noticed, then you are suggesting that everything is up for grabs when considering if something is true or not.
Probability is not subjective. I think what you meant to say was that probability becomes imprecise when applied to the study of history.
ReplyDeleteNo, I mean that you can argue all day about whether or not something is more probable than something else when you haven't got conclusive evidence that can be weighed, counted, or measured.
I'll grant that we know for "sure" there wasn't an eclipse on or around passover in 33CE.
Good because the Bible doesn't say that there was an eclipse.
I won't grant that we know for "sure" Jesus was crucified. We have account that claim he was and we conclude it's likely.
Most scholars - even Bart Ehrman - disagrees with you. He says we know Jesus was crucified. But if you wanna go against scholarship go ahead.
You have no evidence proving that it didn't happen.
We have a lack of worldwide and local corroboration. That is evidence that it did not happen.
That's not conclusive evidence that it didn't happen. That's like saying that when a tree falls in the forest it doesn't make a sound if there is no one to hear it.
Now, if you are going to claim that it got cloudy (as could be read into Mark and Matthew), then fine. But Luke says something else, a whole lot else mind you.
Why would I need to hypothesize something like that? Cloud cover is not Darkness. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree on this.
But if you're going to claim "goddidit" and it was a local phenomenon that no one Josephus et al ever spoke with noticed, then you are suggesting that everything is up for grabs when considering if something is true or not.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a lack of mentioning it does not mean it didn't happen. And Josephus and most of the writing, other than the Gospels, from the first century, were not even close to first-hand eyewitnesses. Josephus was either a baby or not even born yet at the time of the Crucifixion.
Most scholars - even Bart Ehrman - disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't true if we get to the root of what it means to "know for sure".
Cloud cover is not Darkness.
Oh, right, you live in California.
I'm suggesting that a lack of mentioning it does not mean it didn't happen.
Of course you are, because you have a fundamentally flawed epistemology.
Josephus was either a baby or not even born yet at the time of the Crucifixion.
ReplyDeleteMy point here is either it wasn't a big deal (i.e. got cloudy and Luke added to the legend either by misunderstanding or with intent to deceive) or it was a huge supernatural deal, but strangely no one else in the world mentioned it.
You said you would not grant that Jesus was crucified. Ehrman says he was. Either he was or he wasn't. It doesn't matter what "know for sure" means.
ReplyDeleteMy point here is either it wasn't a big deal (i.e. got cloudy and Luke added to the legend either by misunderstanding or with intent to deceive) or it was a huge supernatural deal, but strangely no one else in the world mentioned it.
The flawed epistemology is yours. You are making assumption and unsupported conclusions. Again Cloudy does not mean darkness. If Luke had a misunderstanding then so did Mark and Matthew. Remember that we have three Gospels saying the same thing and John not talking about it does not mean that it did not happen. A contradiction would be if John said that there was no darkness or that there was a bright light.
You said you would not grant that Jesus was crucified.
ReplyDeleteReread please.
Again Cloudy does not mean darkness
Come to North Texas, Orlando or Israel for that matter.
A contradiction would be if John said that there was no darkness or that there was a bright light.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAAHAH!!! And the flawed epistemology is mine... ok.
If the Darkness had been caused by clouds one of the three accounts would have said so.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
I won't grant that we know for "sure" Jesus was crucified. We have account that claim he was and we conclude it's likely.
Now try to weasel...er..explain...how you are not denying Jesus' crucifixion.
Wait? Now the gospels have to actually say explicitly that something was the case??? This puts you in an awkward position...
ReplyDeleteThe scripture explicitly says a lot of things. It doesn't tell us what was causing the darkness beyond saying that the sun stopped shining. Whether this was metaphorical or literal has nothing to do with eclipses or clouds. Stop trying to disprove scripture by assuming it says things it doesn't say.
ReplyDeleteStop trying to disprove scripture by assuming it says things it doesn't say.
ReplyDeleteI'm the one going with a plain reading of the text here.
Cloud Cover? Excuse me where does scripture say anything about "cloud cover"? And how do you find any basis from Matthew, Mark, or Luke?
ReplyDeleteOh right, sorry, a plain reading of Mark and Matthew (or just Mark since they're the same verse verbatim). You are right, clouds or a storm wouldn't make sense with Luke, and that's really the fundamental problem.
ReplyDeleteJust because we are not told what caused the darkness does not mean there is a fundamental problem a valid reason to discount the account.
ReplyDeleteSigh...
ReplyDelete