Luke 23:45 - darkened, not an eclipse

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Luke 23:44-45 (AV)
And it was about the sixth hour,
and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened,
and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Matthew 27:45 (AV)
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1670697769688772/

Luke 23:45 - the sun was darkened (eclipse error in mvs)
One of the dozen or two dozen hard errors in the corruption Greek New Testament is the eclipse. Sometimes the eclipse falls under the radar. 🙂

Here are a couple of resources, from a post on a largely skeptic forum. I'll rewrite it here and later try to get it over to the PureBibleForum. The descriptions of the articles linked cover the salient points I know of.

Bible Criticism and History Forum
Luke 23:45 - and the sun was darkened - no eclipse
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=85823#p85823

=========================

John William Burgon covered the overwhelming evidence for the non-eclipse text.
Benjamin Wilkinson covers Burgon and a few others.

Answers to Objections (1931 written, published c. 2008)
Benjamin Wilkinson
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Answers2Objections/answers2-6-B.htm

Revision Revised - p. 64-65
John William Burgon
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA64

...all the Versions (with the single exception of the Coptic*),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,) are all against them.—They cannot advance the claim of ‘ clearly preponderating evidence ; ’ for they have but a single Version,—not a single father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.— ... (continues)

The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels Considered in Its Bearings Upon the Record of Our Lord's Words and of Incidents in His Life (1882)
Frederic Charles Cook
https://books.google.com/books?id=B3Y_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA110

"For the alteration the responsibility lies with Aleph, B, and L (C is marked by Tischendorf as doubtful), and some few cursives, against all other MSS., nine uncial, nearly all cursives, the best Italic MSS, the Vulgate, the Syraic of Cureton, and others, followed by Tregelles."

===========

Laparola
https://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=49&rif2=23:45

of the setting sun
τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος] p75* ‭א C*vid L 070 579 2542 pc l384(1/3) (syrh σκοτισθέντος) syrh(mg) slav Origengr Origenlat Cyril-Jerusalem mssaccording to Origen

of the eclipsing sun
τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος] p75(c) B 597 l10 l12 l68(1/2) l70 l76(1/2) l185(pt) l211(1/3) l299 l303 l387(1/2) l770(1/2) l773(1/2) l813(1/2) l950(1/3) l1127(pt) l1223(1/2)l1780(1/2) (copsa copbo(mss) τοῦ δὲ) copbo Origen WH

and the sun darkened
καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος] A C3 (D itd ἐσκοτίσθη δὲ) E G H K Q W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 063 f1 f13 28 157 180 205 565 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195mg1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect (ita itb itc ite arm geo Diatessaron omit καὶ) itaur itf itff2 itl itq vgsyrc syrs syrp syrpal eth Marcionaccording to Epiphanius(vid) Origenlat mssaccording to Origen ς

the sun having set and the sun having darkened
τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος] C2(vid) 1365
omit] 33 1195* vgms

===========

The Matthew reference makes it clear that it not an eclipse. They do not happen in Passover and only last a few minutes. This is simple.
Plus Luke was a super-accurate historian. And the sun being darkened, does not mean eclipse in many Bible usages, Luke's usage is consistent and accurate.

Granted, Burgon likely oversimplified the ECW, especially Origen, but the ms evidence is so overwhelming in Greek, Latin and Syriac and most all other lines that it is clear . .

It is just Westcott-Hort recension silliness that makes this any type of issue. Those against the accuracy and purity of the Bible will naturally gravitate to the absurd corruptions in the Westcott-Hort recension.

Afaik, nobody has done a good job yet on documenting the early references.
Steven

=======================================


My reference was first simply to what we learn from the historical studies of scholars who looked closely at the history, including William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939), Colin J. Hemer (1930-1987) and Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White (1913-1993).

Henry Joel Cadbury (1883-1974) was especially involved in the Preface studies. And even from a somewhat liberal position, he helps understand that Luke was close to the events, he also emphasizes the Luke-Acts distinctives.

The Knowledge Gained in Luke's Preface (1922)
Henry Joel Cadbury
https://archive.org/stream/s8expositor24londuoft#page/416/mode/2up

Henry Joel Cadbury wrote:

Whether it implies an eyewitness or merely a contemporary, such a claim of intimate personal knowledge in the preface of Luke has an important bearing on the questions of date and authorship. Fifty out of the fifty-two chapters in the work go back no earlier than the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. With much if not all the period from this date to the end of Acts, that is, about three decades, the author claims contemporary information. Many scholars will find here a fresh confirmation of the early date of composition recently urged by Professors A. von Hamack and C. C. Torrey.

To many who have cherished the belief that the two books to Theophilus were written by Paul’s doctor''friend and associate, the suggestion will come as a welcome surprise that the preface not only may, but perhaps must, be understood to claim contemporary and first-hand knowledge. p. 417

Both parties, however, whether arguing for or against early date and Lucan authorship, will do well to eschew the conventional habits of settled exegetical conformity. Whether we believe him or not, the possibility must be left open that the author is claiming in the very beginning of his work to have been long in such close contact with the series of events which he unfolds as to be possessed of first-hand contemporary knowledge about them, and that perhaps he means to claim the knowledge of an actual eyewitness. At any rate he says nothing of research. p. 419-420
Click to expand...

And this is even with the error of Theophilus as a Christian (p. 413). Understanding that he is the high priest of 40-41 AD simplifies the exposition.

Steven

==============================

BCHF

BCHF - Luke's date for the crucifixion - Page 4 - 2018

BCHF - Solar Eclipse under Pilate - 2020
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7505
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBi..._the_crucifixion_darkness_actually_confirmed/
Three other threads
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBi...e_gospels_say_that_there_was_darkness_during/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christiani...oof_the_crucifixion_darkness_really_happened/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBi...ce_of_global_darkness_at_time_of_crucifixion/

The key verses are:

Luke 23:44-45 (AV)
And it was about the sixth hour,
and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened,
and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Matthew 27:45 (AV)
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

There is a variant in Luke 23:45.

"Darkened" has overwhelming support, as you can see it an excellent five pages by John William Burgon in:

Revision Revised - p. 61-65
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA61

However, you will find the corruption "eclipse" in modern versions due to the failings of "modern scientific textual criticism".

And there are some additional references here:

hard errors in the Westcott-Hort recension
Luke 23:45 - darkened, not an eclipse
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/luke-23-45-not-an-eclipse.1620/
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Peter,

Peter Gainsford
”Luke 23.45 specifically and explicitly states that the darkness at Jesus' death was a solar eclipse.”

Actually the evidence is massive that the “darkened” text is original and authentic.

Luke 23:44-45 (AV)
And it was about the sixth hour,
and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened,
and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Matthew 27:45 (AV)
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

And detail information is at:

Luke 23:45 - darkened, not an eclipse
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/luke-23-45-darkened-not-an-eclipse.1620/

The modern versions are following a piddle ultra-minority corruption from the Westcott-Hort recension.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The 'darkened' reading only starts to appear in the 5th century: A; D; Q; W; an alteration in C; the Vulgate; and later witnesses. The only early 'darkened' reading is para-Lucan, in the Marcionite Evangelion (1st half of 2nd cent.), and that was quickly regarded as heretical.

===========

Hi Peter,

I understand that you are weak in New Testament textual history.

E.g.

the Diatessoran was a second century production

the many Old Latin manuscripts are a 2nd (or 1st) century line

the
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Peter Gainsford

@kiwihellenist.bsky.social
https://bsky.app/profile/kiwihellenist.bsky.social/post/3mpuqlzzcak2a

No, that's reversed. Witnesses up to the 5th cent. _unanimously_ read an eclipse: Tertullian Apol. 21.19; Africanus F93 Wallraff; P75; א; B; C; Origen adv Celsum 2.33; Eusebius Chron. 173-175 Helm ≈ 213 Karst. For reference here's Nestle-Aland ad loc. (they omit Tertull., Africanus, and Euseb.).
Text and critical apparatus for Luke 23.44 in Nestle-Aland 28


ALT
12:32 AM · Jul 5, 2026
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Peter,

I already told you that you omitted the Diatessaron and the Old Latin line, which comes from the 2nd century.

And the Matthew text.

oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,)

======================

setting sun
τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος] p75* ‭א C*vid L (syrh σκοτισθέντος) syrh(mg) slav
Origengr Origenlat Cyril-Jerusalem mss according to Origen

eclipsing sun
τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος] p75(c) B (copsa copbo(mss) τοῦ δὲ) copbo
Origen WH

sun darkened
καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος]
A C3 (D itd ἐσκοτίσθη δὲ) E G H K Q W X Δ Θ Π Ψ Byz Lect
(ita itb itc ite arm geo Diatessaron omit καὶ) itaur itf itff2 itl itq vgsyrc syrs syrp syrpal eth
Marcionaccording to Epiphanius(vid) Origenlat mssaccording to Origen

Overwhelming uncials
Alexandrinus and Bezae
italic
syriac-s p pal
ethiopic
Diatessaron
Marcionaccording to Epiphanius(vid)
Origen-lat
mssaccording to Origen

Thallus called the crucifixion darkness an eclipse, which Africanus rejects as astronomically impossible at Passover. T

...all the Versions (with the single exception of the Coptic*),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem, &c.,) are all against them.—They cannot advance the claim of ‘ clearly preponderating evidence ; ’ for they have but a single Version,—not a single father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.— ... (continues)
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tracking down the Origen explanation

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence
Daniel Wallace
Philip M. Miller
https://books.google.com/books?id=838A8BDUI5kC&pg=PA60

Origen claimed that in Luke 23.45 theenemies of the church refashioned the text as an attack on the Gospels, since an eclipse was impossible at the time of a full moon."14
14. Origen, Matt. Comm. ser. 134; see Metzger, "Explicit References in the Words of Origen," 96.

1787382576569.png


=========================


(Also see Amy Donaldson)

Metzger (1987)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3pM3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA88

https://ia601608.us.archive.org/23/...Edit/TheTextOfTheNewTestament2ndEdit_text.pdf

For a summary of these opinions, reference may be made to B. M. Metzger, 'Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts', in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. by J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson (Freiburg, 1963), pp. 78-95.

=========================

Celsus
And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles."
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Amy Donaldson
Volume 1
https://www.muslim-library.com/dl/b...INGS_AMONG_GREEK_AND_LATIN_CHURCH_FATHERS.pdf

(1) Dogmatic concerns. Pack lists two examples, one of which is Luke 23:45 (§76).22 In the Commentary on Matthew, Origen is again comparing the Synoptics and relates that only in Luke is there a mention of an eclipse at the crucifixion, and only in some copies. He notes that the majority of manuscripts (pleraque exemplaria) state merely that the sun went dark (kaiV ejskotivsqh oJ h@lio"), but a few others (in quibusdam autem exemplariis) explain instead that there was an eclipse (tou ` hJlivou ejklipovnto"). This change he considers intentional, either to make the text more explicit, or as an attack against Scripture by explaining away a supernatural event with a logical alternative. Here we see a combination of external and internal evidence at work, although the weight of the Synoptic parallels is of equal value to the MS evidence for Origen. Since the variant is rare, in contradiction to Matthew and Mark, and unnecessary if not problematic to the text, Origen prefers to explain this as a deliberate change on the part of the heretics.

21 Metzger briefly touches on this issue of Origen‟s MSS, stating that unlike with the Hebrew OT, Origen did not have a reliable “original” to refer back to and so preferred not to pass judgment on most variants. In those instances where Origen does pass judgment, however, Metzger (unlike Pack‟s systematic listing) generally refers to his criteria as deriving from “more or less inconsequential and irrelevant considerations” (“Explicit References,” 93-94). 22 Pack, “Origen‟s Evaluation,” 143-44; cf. idem, “Methodology of Origen,” 137-38; Metzger, “Explicit References,” 86-87.

====================

In some cases, though, the fathers accused certain people of emending the text for other reasons. At Luke 23:45 (§76), where a variant explains that the darkness over the earth was caused by an eclipse, Origen allows the possibility that someone added this simply for clarification, but he thinks it was more likely added by someone trying to undermine the Gospels by explaining away a supernatural event as a natural one.45

45 On Luke 23:45, see W. C. Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition: Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels (SBL Text-Critical Studies 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 97-98.

========

1787384556660.png


dicimus ergo, quoniam Matthaeus et Marcus non dixerunt defectionem solis tunc factam fuisse, sed neque Lucas, secundum pleraque exemplaria habentia sic: »et erat hora fere sexta et tenebrae factae sunt super omnem terram usque ad horam nonam, et obscuratus est sol«. in quibusdam autem exemplariis non habetur: »tenebrae factae sunt et obscuratus est sol«; sed ita: »tenebrae factae sunt super omnem terram sole deficiente«. et forsitan ausus est aliquis (quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens) pro: »et obscuratus est sol«, ponere: »deficiente sole«, aestimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebrae nisi »sole deficiente«. Puto autem magis, quoniam insidiatores ecclesiae Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam »tenebrae factae sunt sole deficiente«, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere ea. (GCS, Or 11:274)

We say then that Matthew and Mark have not stated that an eclipse occurred at that time. Neither did Luke according to very many copies, which have, And it was about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened. In some copies however the words, And the sun was darkened, do not occur, but, There was darkness over all the land, the sun being eclipsed.2 Possibly some one in the desire to make the statement more plain made bold to place, The sun being eclipsed, in the place of, And the sun was darkened, believing that the darkness could not have happened except by reason of an eclipse. Yet I rather believe that the secret enemies of the church of Christ have altered this phrase, making the darkness occur by reason of 'The sun being eclipsed‘, so that the Gospels might be attacked with some show of reason, through the devices of those who wished to attack them. (Tollinton)63

2 Luke xxiii. 44-5. The MS. authority is fairly evenly divided between the two readings. R. V. adopts τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος and so favours the eclipse.

63 Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen (trans. R. B. Tollinton; London: SPCK, 1929), 117.

(The Tollington text continues)
It is my own opinion that, just as the other signs which occurred during our Lord’s passion occurred only in Jerusalem, so the darkness was only over all the land of Judaea until the ninth hour. The events of which I say that they occurred only in Jerusalem are the rending of the veil of the temple, the quaking of the earth, the rocks being rent, the graves opened. The rocks were not rent outside Judaea, nor were other graves opened except those that were in Jerusalem or, possibly, in the land of Judaea. There was no earthquake at that time except in Jerusalem. Of no other place is it recorded that all the fabric of the earth at that time quaked, so as to make the event perceptible, say, in Ethiopia or in India or in Scythia. Had this been the case it would without doubt be found in the narratives of those who have recorded in chronicles other remarkable occurrences.

Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen (1929)
Richard Bertram Tollinton, (1866–1932)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4X_YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA117

1787402001900.png
1787402063824.png


In his discussion of the crucifixion in Matthew and the darkness covering the land, Origen compares the Synoptic accounts. He notes the reading in Luke, which explains that the sun went dark, and the variant reading that specifies an eclipse. Origen sees the latter as a secondary reading, probably an intentional change to clarify the meaning. He speculates, however, that the change may have been more malicious, made by opponents of the church who were trying to remove the supernatural element from the crucifixion.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Looking for commentaries that directly discusse what Origen says about copies.

Also can use full text
Pack
Metzger
Kannaday

"commentary" "Matthew" "origen" "eclipse" "luke"

Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 1 (1802)
Johann David Michaelis
https://books.google.com/books?id=S_w1iMDcRegC&pg=PA287

Luke xxiii. 45. και εσκοτισθη ο ηλιος is an antient and celebrated example. Instead of this reading, which expresses the darkening of the sun by the intervention of thick clouds, the eighth Codex Stephani, and seven Lectionaria, quoted by Wetstein, have εκλειποντος το ηλιε, a phrase which is never applied but to an actual eclipse of the sun, an event that could not possibly have happened at the time of the crucifixion. This alteration had taken place in some of the manuscripts so early as the time of Origen, who in his commentary on Matthew xxvii. 45. has the following observation,

forfitan aufus est aliquis, quasi manifeftius d aliquid dicere volens, pro et obfcuratus eft fol' ponere 'deficiente sole,' exiftimans quod non aliter fieri potuiffent tenebræ, nifi fole deficiente.

1787440313506.png


Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present - (2005)
Dale C. Allison
https://books.google.com/books?id=jJgaNuDFxC4C&pg=PA89

1787450590880.png


Scribes, Theology, and Apologetics: Assessing Scribal Interference in New Testament Manuscripts (2024)
Alan Mugridge
https://books.google.com/books?id=d-04EQAAQBAJ&pg=PT175

1787440101056.png
1787440136709.png




Commentary on Matthew (2008)
Jerome
translated by Thomas P. Scheck
https://books.google.com/books?id=j0UmWBivNJgC&pg=PA318

The Rise of Talmud -
uses Amy Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=
https://www.google.com/books/editio...+"luke"+"copies"&pg=PA231&printsec=frontcover

"genuine Origen"
An Appeal to the Genuine Records and Testimonies of Heathen and Jewish Writers: In Defence of Christianity, Part 2 (1833)
Thomas Dawson
https://books.google.com/books?id=m_fEgnm42PIC&pg=PA109


Metzger

Pagan, Jewish, and Christian Bruce Manning Metzger. commentary on Matthew he notices that , " according to most copies ( secundum pleraque exemplaria ) " Luke ... Origen first suggests may have arisen from a desire for greater explicitness on .

=======================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Origen’s Commentary on Matthew – what exists in English? (2017)
Roger Pearse
http://roger-pearse.com/weblog/2017/03/09/origens-commentary-on-matthew-what-exists-in-english/

The English translation that floats around the internet is that of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series, reprinted and repackaged in heaven-alone-knows how many forms. In this 1885 American edition, it is found in volume 9, online in PDF here (sometimes it is treated as volume 10). I shall refer to the page numbers in this printed edition.
archive.org

The Ante-Nicene Fathers : translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 : Roberts, A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

v 1. The Apostolic Fathers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.- v. 2. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria.-...
archive.org

The translation was made by a certain John Patrick DD (p.409), minister of Greenside, Edinburgh (title page), and contains the following materials:​

  • Extract from book 1 (p.411) – this is in fact quoted in, and so based on, Eusebius Church History book 6, chapter 25. HTML here.
  • Extract from book 2 (p.412) – this is from the Philocalia of Origen, chapter 6. HTML here.
  • Books 10-14 (pp.413-512) – these are from the Greek text. HTML book 10 starts here.
The translator’s brief introduction makes plain that he knew of books 15-17, but ignored them. Each book is around 50 pages of the GCS, and about 50 columns of Migne, so they are quite substantial.

The translator also ignored some extracts in Latin. A second extract from book 1 is preserved in Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, chapter 5, which exists only in a Latin version; but this is not translated by the ANF. A chunk of book 7 is likewise preserved in Pamphilus, chapter 10.

Interestingly a portion of book 15 was translated in November 2007 by a certain Yoel Natan, using machine-translation, on this page.

Clearly there is a need for an English translation of the remaining material. It seems a bit lengthy for me, but I have done no precise calculations. It would be very nice to have it, though!

UPDATE (13/3/17): It seems that Justin Gohl has translated book 15, and has a version up at Academia.edu for comment! Marvellous news!

UPDATE (21/11/17): And Dr Gohl has now translated and uploaded book 16 as well!

UPDATE (20/01/20): A new English translation has appeared: Ronald E. Heine, The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew, Oxford Early Christian Texts (2018), ISBN: 9780199669073. Available here at Amazon.com, and Amazon.co.uk. The OUP page states that: “The first translation into English of the entirety of the Greek and Latin remains of the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, including most of the fragments.”​

=================================
English other than Tollington

Modern and Historical English Editions

Ronald E. Heine Translation (2018): Published by Oxford University Press as part of the Oxford Early Christian Texts series. This two-volume set is the first complete English translation of all surviving Greek and Latin portions, as well as ancient fragments of the commentary. [1, 2]
The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew

John Patrick Translation (1896): Translated by John Patrick and published in Volume 9 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection. This older public-domain translation includes partial segments (Books 1, 2, and 10–14, covering specific sections of Matthew), and is widely mirrored online (such as on the New Advent website). [1, 2, 3, 4]
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Heine 2018 edition p. 745

p. 746
We say, therefore, that Matthew and Mark did not say that an eclipse of the sun occurred at that time, nor did Luke141 who, in the greatest number of exemplars, has the following words: ‘And it was about the sixth hour and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened’. But some exemplars do not have, ‘and there was darkness and the sun was darkened’, but instead, ‘There was darkness over all the earth when the sun was eclipsed’. Perhaps someone (as if wishing to say something clearer) put ‘when the sun was eclipsed’ for, ‘and the sun was darkened’, thinking that there was no other way that there could have been darkness unless ‘the sun was eclipsed’.142


1787456585936.png

1787456637339.png

1787456680028.png

1787456746333.png

1787456792627.png

1787456888410.png

1787456938723.png

1787457015236.png

1787457051651.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Peter,

This is the text from the Ronald E. Heine 2018 edition
The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew
Volume II p. 746-747

Footnotes
141 Greek fragment: Neither Matthew nor Mark mention either the sun or an eclipse, but Luke....

142 See Mk 15:33; Lk 23:44,45.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Early Church Fathers Scripture Index : Texts
https://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/FathersScripIndex/texts.php?id=42023045

Church Fathers Scripture Search Engine
Church Fathers Scripture Index
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Luke 23:45

ECW
Marcion, Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem,

Tertullian Apol. 21.19; Africanus F93 Wallraff; P75; א; B; C; Origen adv Celsum 2.33; Eusebius Chron. 173-175 Helm ≈ 213 Karst.

Tertullian
An Answer to the Jews.
Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea.
Chapter XIII
and “the sun grew dark at mid-day:”1408
1408 See Amos viii. 9, as before, in c.x.

Tertullian
Anti-Marcion.
The Five Books Against Marcion.
Book IV.
This will be the day, concerning which Amos also writes: And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that the sun shall go down at noon and the earth shall be dark in the clear day.”5146
5146 Amos viii. 9.
(At noon)5147
5147 Here you have the meaning of the sixth hour.

Tertullian: Part Fourth.
On Fasting.
Of Stations, and of the Hours of Prayer.
Chapter X
And so the “pressure” must be maintained up to that hour in which the orb—involved from the sixth hour in a general darkness—performed for its dead Lord a sorrowful act of duty; so that we too may then return to enjoyment when the universe regained its sunshine.1083
1083 See Matt. xxvii. 45–54; Mark xvi. 33–39; Luke xxiii. 44–47.

Origen Against Celsus.
Book II
Chapter XXXIII

and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?” 3290
3290 Cf. Matt. xxvii. 51, 52; cf. Luke xxiii. 44, 45.

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.” 3293
Origen Commentary on Matthew

Hippolytus.
The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus. Exegetical.
On Luke.

Arnobius.
The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Adversus Gentes.)
Book I.
Chapter LIII.

An earthquake shook the world, the sea was heaved up from its depths, the heaven was shrouded in darkness, the sun’s fiery blaze was checked, and his heat became moderate;3350

3350 It may be instructive to notice how the simpler narrative of the Gospels is amplified. Matthew (xxvii. 51) says that the earth trembled, and Luke (xxiii. 45) that the sun was darkened; but they go no further. [See p. 301, note 4, supra.]

The Gospel of Nicodemus; Part I.--The Acts of Pilate: Second Greek Form.
Chapter 11.
and from the earthquake being violent and great, the rocks also were rent. And the tombs of the dead were opened, and the curtain of the temple was rent, and there was darkness from the sixth hour till the ninth.

The Diatessaron of Tatian.
[52] [Arabic, p. 196] 36103610 Matt. xxvii. 45a; Luke xxiii. 44b.
And from the sixth hour3611
3611 Lit six hours and nine hours respectively. darkness was on all the land unto the ninth [53] hour,3612
3612 Lit six hours and nine hours respectively.
and the sun became dark.

Augustine
The Harmony of the Gospels.
Book I
The Fulfilment of the Prophecies Concerning Christ.
Chapter XXXI

The Harmony of the Gospels.
Book III
Of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists in Their Notices of the Draught of Vinegar.
Chapter XVII
Luke adds, however, a statement of the cause of the darkness, namely, that “the sun was darkened.”

The Harmony of the Gospels.
Book III
Of the Rending of the Veil of the Temple, and of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark Really Harmonize with Luke with Respect to the Order in Which that Incident Took Place.
Chapter XIX
He does not introduce it, however, in the same order. For, with the intention of attaching miracle to miracle, he has told us first how “the sun was darkened,” and then has deemed it right to subjoin the said sentence in immediate succession, namely, “And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.” Thus it would appear that he has introduced at an earlier point this incident, which really took place when the Lord expired, so as to give us there a summary description of the circumstances relating to the drinking of the vinegar, and the loud voice, and the death itself, which are understood to have taken place previous to the rending of the veil, and after the darkness had come in.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Epiphanius discusses the darkening of the sun in his landmark anti-heretical treatise titled the Panarion (also known as Refutation of All Heresies or Medicine Chest), specifically within Book 1, Section 42 (which is entirely dedicated to Against the Marcionites). [1]
Within this section, Epiphanius provides a numbered list of textual extractions and variants from Marcion's Evangelion (Gospel of the Lord) followed by his own theological refutations. [1, 2]
The specific locations of the discussion are broken down below:

1. Scholion 71 (The Textual Citation)
Epiphanius lists the text found in Marcion's gospel as Scholion 71. In this entry, Epiphanius strings together a heavily compressed sequence of crucifixion events to demonstrate what Marcion retained: [1, 2]

"And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his raiment, and the sun was darkened." (Corresponding to Luke 23:33, 23:34, and 23:45) [, 2]
Click to expand...

2. Elenchus 71 (The Refutation)
Directly following the list of scholia, Epiphanius provides a corresponding rebuttal or examination called Elenchus 71. [1]
In this specific refutation, Epiphanius points out that Marcion did not "try to conceal this great event". He argues that by keeping the phrase "and the sun was darkened" unchanged from the traditional Gospel of Luke, Marcion inadvertently sabotaged his own heresy. From Epiphanius's orthodox perspective, a physical creation (the sun) responding to the death of Christ proves that the physical world and the Creator God (the Demiurge) are intrinsically tied to Jesus—fundamentally contradicting Marcion’s claim that Jesus was sent by an entirely separate, spiritual, alien God. [1, 2, 3]


If you want to look deeper into Epiphanius's text, I can walk you through Scholion 72 (where he attacks Marcion for cutting out the "Thief on the Cross" passage) or show you how Tertullian's Against Marcion treats the same exact passage. Which path would you prefer? [1, 2]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top