Synoptics: From the sixth to the ninth hour ([Matt. xxvii, 45]; [Mark xv, 33]; [Luke xxiii, 44]).
According to Matthew and Luke this darkness lasted from the time that he was suspended upon the cross until he died. Yet his executioners are ignorant of it. Luke says: “His acquaintances, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things [the crucifixion]” ([xxiii, 49]), which they could not have done had this darkness really occurred.
If this darkness occurred, and began at the sixth hour, as stated by the Synoptics, then, according to John, the conclusion of the trial, the sentencing of Jesus, the preparations for his execution, and the journey to Golgotha, all took place during the darkness, a conclusion which the nature of the narrative utterly precludes.
Christian apologists have cited Phlegon who notices an eclipse which occurred about this time. But there is a variance of at least six years in regard to the time that Jesus was crucified. Besides an eclipse could not have occurred within two weeks of a Passover, on the occurrence of which he is declared to have been executed. Farrar says: “It could have been no darkness of any natural eclipse, for the Paschal moon was at the full” (Life of Christ, p. 505). Geikie says: “It is impossible to explain the origin of this darkness. The Passover moon was then at the full, so that it could not have been an eclipse. The earlier fathers, relying on a notice of an eclipse that seemed to coincide in time, though it really did not, fancied that the darkness was caused by it, but incorrectly” (Life of Christ, Vol. ii, p. 624, Notes). “The celebrated passage of Phlegon,” says Gibbon, “is now wisely abandoned” (Rome, Vol. i, p. 589, Note).
371
Was the veil of the temple rent, as our Gospel of Matthew declares?
The Gospel of Matthew, it is affirmed, originally appeared in Hebrew, St. Jerome, who had this original version, says: “In that Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters, we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that a lintel (or beam) of a prodigious size fell down.”
Commenting on this alleged prodigy, the rending of the veil, Strauss says: “Now the object of the divine Providence in effecting such a miracle could only have been this: to produce in the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus a deep impression of the importance of his death, and to furnish the first promulgators of the gospel with a fact to which they might appeal in support of their cause. But, as Schleiermacher has shown, nowhere else in the New Testament, either in the apostolic epistles or in Acts, or even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the subject of which it could scarcely fail to be suggested, is this event mentioned: on the contrary, with the exception of this bare Synoptical notice, every trace of it is lost; which could scarcely have been the case if it had really formed a ground of apostolical argument. Thus the divine purpose in ordaining this miracle must have totally failed, or, since this is inconceivable, it cannot have been ordained for this object—in other words, since neither any other object of the miracle, nor yet a mode in which the event might happen naturally can be discovered, it cannot have happened at all” (Leben Jesu, p. 789).