Uggh--Another Issue To Work Through-- Crucifixion Issue

[Kris]

Hello all,

 

I swear, I am not trying to find crap, it seems to find me!  I was innocently looking over some of Carrier's work on Phlegon and Thallus-- trying to shore up my position that they were referring to the eclipse that occurred in 29 ad and not actually reporting out the gospel events, and things were going quite smoothly.  Then I ran across a gentleman named Arthur Ashley Sykes who lived in the 1600's.  He wrote about Eusibus stating that Phlegon's eclipse occurred in 32ad-- and basically debunks him.  Arthur believed that this was a supernatural experience and not a natural eclipse.  He thinks that Phlegon was reporting an actual eclipse that occurred and most likely it was the 29ad solar eclipse.  So far, so good.  I totally agree with him!!

 

Where things took a turn for me is that he goes on to talk about reports that the Chinese recorded a strange eclipse in 32ad that confounded them, and that they could not explain.  This information comes from a Dominique De Colonia, who quotes a few other sources-- mainly Father Couplet, and another guy. Arthur explains that Dominique is exaggerating things a bit, and what Father Couplet actually said was that the Chinese stated this eclipse came before it's time on the last day of the 3rd moon and that the king no longer wished to be called holy.  Arthur goes on to say that it was also known that Chinese Astrological records were not all that reliable at times and there were a number of "false" reported eclipses that actually never happened.  He also states that even if an eclipse happened on this date-- it was the wrong time for the Passover, because that occurred on a Monday in 32ad. 

 

Lastly, he mentions that there was a Chinese Man who was greatly offended by these Christian Missionaries and this purported story, that he wrote a counter argument to them and stated he could not find ANYTHING in the Chinese History writings that supported this.  The Christians trying to rebut him come back with pleas to English astronomers to find some sort of evidence of this eclipse-- yet they don't cite any Chinese Books or records to lend credence to their story-- which Arthur (and I) find odd. 

 

Anyway, it freaked me out that there might be reports of weird darkness in other parts of the world-- such as China, as this is an argument that I often use in my mind when telling myself that Christianity is not true-- that no one saw anything weird during the crucifixion.  If you are interested in the actual text, I can post it for you-- it is a bit long, and jumps to French in some spots-- and the spelling is horrible!  But, the actual context might mean more than my overview of it. 

 

Please tell me your thoughts!  I want to believe the Chinese guy who stated that there was no recorded history of this event--I would like to think that this may have been one of those things where a coincidence occurred or that Christians made up something, in order to get converts.  I did not think that that 32ad date got a lot of play, but Eusibus did calculate this date (based on Daniel  I think!).

 

Has anyone else heard of this.  Frankly, I saw something about reports of darkness in other parts of the world (China I think) on some apologist websites, but I basically ignored them-- but this has me a little freaked out.  Every time I think I have seen it all and worked it out in my head, something like this comes along.  It sucks-- I barely slept last night worrying about this. 

[ExCBooster]

Slow down, sparky. But wait, you're in luck!

 

Alright, Kris! Now we're playing in my backyard: history of East Asia. Turns out, my bachelor's degree in history is in East Asian history. Let's take a second and look at the sources...

 

The Debate

 

The Topic: ZOMGz0rZ it's a supernatural eclipse, in 32 AD d00dZ!!! The crucifixion, as told in the Bible, is for realzies all along!!1!

 

Pro Team: Arthur Ashley Sykes, Domonique De Colonia, a "Father Couplet" and "some other guy" </sarcasm/> ... looks legit. </sarcasm/>

 

Con Team: The disciplines of Astronomy, mathematics, and all of Chinese historical record keeping... and about a freakin' BILLION Chinese people... who aren't Christian (the monotheists of China, adding the Muslims to the Christians, tally to a very generously calculated 6%).

 

... The betting office will not be taking wagers on this debate, as it is now well beyond "academic," and into "ludicrous" territory.

 

The "PRO" side of the debate is presented in Kris' post above, and the "CON" side will be forthcoming shortly.

Stay tuned for astronomy, mathematics, a diversion into a history of computing technology, and way, WAY more information than you ever wanted or needed on Chinese history and historiography... (Spoiler alert: this is going to be a weapons-grade pantsing.)

[Kris]

Ex--Booster-- you go girl, do your thing!!  But, I am going to go ahead and post the information that I found in Arthur's book so you will have the complete reference, as ugly as it is.  I just happened share this with mwc last night to get his thoughts on weird, obscure history as that seems to be one of his specialties-- so I have it readily available.  Here you go, and remember, the French and bad spellings are Arthur and not me:

 

 

 

 For if what is reported to be skid in the Chinese annals be true, we have then a full answer to the objection made by the wise men of this world to Origen: here is evidence of this darkness not from Christians, but Heathens; and here is a full confutation of the objection infinitely superior to what that Father urged. We are told then by Adrian Greston, in his history of China, and from him by Huetius; and likewise by Father Couplet in Confucius-, and from all these by a late Jesuit, Dominique de Colonia, that k "the Chinese in their fasti tell us,"
(I use
k .Let Chinois,—oflt eu grand soin de marquer dans leurs anriens fades, que sous le rcgne de leur sage roy jgwi«w vm-ii il y eut dans le mois d'Avtil une eclipse dc solci! qui fut t<>tale, et qui econna fort ce prince, parce que, disent ils, elle arrira contre Je court regulier de k nature, & qu! eHe mit en disordre leurs Astronomes;— et derangea absolumenc toutes
leurs ( I use the words of Dominique de Colonia ) "that in the reign of their wise King Quam"vu-ti, in the month of April, there was "a total eclipse of the sun, which sur4' prized that Prince very much, because "( say the Chinese ) it happened contrary to
the regular course of nature; and that it "puzzled their astronomers, and' absolutely "confounded all their observations: The €C Epoch they fix for this extraordinary event "answers precisely to the 4th year of the « ao2d Olympiad, and to the 18th of 27"berius.—-This memorable event is ta"ken notice of in the History of China by
Adrian Qrejlon. The Fathers, Couplet, "Intorcetta, and Rougemont, have likewise ,*' mentioned it in their Confucius, as has the "famous and learned Huetiits in his Demon** firatio; Eyangelica'\ \ (V; '. . ,
. 'Twill be but little to .the purpose to take notice of the improvements that this
leurs observations; & l'epoque qu'ils donnent a cet événement extraordinair repond precisément à la quatrième année de la deux-cens deuxi:trie Olympiade, & à la dix'huitiéme année du regne'de l'empereur Ttbere—
Ce fait -jntmorable se trouve marqué .dans l'histoire de la Chtne à'HadwnGr/stcn; Les Peres Couplet, Intortetta, & Rw»jrttnont en ont ausst parlé dans leur Confuttus, Se il en est ausst fait mention dans la Demonstration Evangelique de l'iliuftre & : sçavant Monsteur Huo t. Dominique, dt Colonix, L# Religton Chréttenne autortsée fur Itt tajem. Tom. I- P- j6, 37.
Author Author has made to the story: such as, it *'1 puzzled their astronomers; it absolutely u confounded all their observations; and it "put into disorder all their tribunal" For all these he has no grounds in his authors. Nor is it worth while to correct his little inaccuracies; such are, that he says " that "the Fathers Couplet, Intorcetta, and Rougea mont have spoke of this eclipse in their "Confucius"; in this he omits & fourth Father equally concerned with the three he names, viz. Christian Herdtrich : and then he mentions the three he cites as taking notice of this eclipse, when the Chinese chronology annexed to Confucius was the single work of Father Couplet alone. Not then to take notice of these sort of things, Father Couplet in his chronological table of the Chinese monarchy under the 46th cycle has these words,
m " In the 28th year of this cycle, the 7th "year of the reign of Quam-vu-ti, the last '* day of the 3d moon, there was a memorable
1 Elle mit en disordre leurs astronomes, leurs Tribunaux, et derangea absolument toutes leurs observations.
m Anno Cytli 28,Imperi« vero (scil. Quam-ru ti) Luns,^. Se ultimo, memorabilis Etlipftt totalis, cujus occasione vetat1 in codicillis imposterum uti nomine Xim, id est, sanctus. Cum dicant annales Eclipsim prjevenisse tempus, an fuerir. ea, qua: in morte Christi contigtt, Astronomis cxaminandum relinquitur. Couplet. Monarth}* Sinus. 1abulx Chronologit*, p- 78.
L "total

"total eclipse: On occasion of which he t: forbad for ever after to use the word "Xim, i. e. Holy, in their Letters Patents. "Since their annals say that this eclipse "came before its time, 'tis lest to Ajlrono"men to consider, whether this was not "that which happened at the death of "Christ" Now,
1. What is it that F. Couplet would have Astronomers consider, or compute? Can they calculate an eclipse that is præternatural? By what art, or by what rules must this be done? The Chinese annals say no more than this— that this total eclipse came before the time, i. e. before the time that they had calculated it for, and it happened on the last day os the 3 d moon. Now 'tis certain that in the year of Christ 32 ( which is the year F. Couplet fixes for this eclipse,) the passover or full moon was upon a * Munday or Tuesday, and consequently that could not be the year of Christ's death.
The Chinese chronology, as F. Couplet has fixed it, makes the 32"* year of Christ to be the same with that year in which the remarkable eclipse in ^uam-vu-ti's reign
* V. Whiston's Harmony, p. J§6- Scaliger. Emendatio Temporum, 1. 6.
hap
happened. But then this misfortune attends this calculation, that this eclipse happens a full year too soon; for our Saviour died not in his 32d year, but in his 33d.
2. This eclipse happened, says F. Couplet, " * the last day of the 3 d moon ". Now the Chinese -j- begin their year with the new moon of March: and consequently the last day of the 3 d moon, in that year must have happened not at the time in which Christ died. For our Saviour dying at the passover in the jirfi moony i. e. when the first moon was a fortnight old, the end of the Chinese third moon must necessarily carry us two months and two weeks further in the year than our Saviour's real passion; and consequently this eclipse will not answer the purpose for which 'tis brought. Or if in the 3 2d year of Christ, the Chinese began their year on the 2d or 3* of March, i. e. a month sooner than the Jews did, then the Chinese 3 d moon will end towards the end of May, six weeks too late for the Jewish passover, which this year was kept April 14th, as Scaliger has computed it. But
* Lunæ j. die ultimo. Couplet,
f Chinenses principium a Martii Mensis novilunio auspicantur. larrit/iHt Thesaurus rerum Indicarum. Pars. 2. p- 608.
L 2 -j .This
« PreviousContinue »

Books
eBook - FREE
Get this book in print


AbeBooks
QOOP
On Demand Books
Amazon

Find in a library
All sellers »

0 Reviews
Write review
Take our survey New!
A Dissertation on the Eclipse Mentioned by Phlegon. Or, an Enquiry Whether ...
By Arthur Ashley Sykes

About this book

Terms of Service


Page images
PDF
EPUB
3- This eclipse happening the "last: day tt of the 3d moon", it is plain it happened at the new moon, not at the full moon, and consequently cannot be to the purpose for which it is brought. However
4. The real difficulty is still behind; and that is, Was there ever any such eclipse at all as this which F. Couplet mentions, in Quam-vic-ti1 s reign } What evidence is there, that there is any ground for asserting such "a memorable eclipse on the last day of "the 3d moon", even supposing that the 32* year of Christ was the trite year of his passion, and that this moon coincided with the right time of the year? 'Tis very observable, what Monsieur CaJJini has said, in his remarks added to Lubere's Historical relation of Siam.— "It is unques«t tionable," says he, " that a great part of <e the eclipses, and of the other conjunctions '« which the Chinese do give us as observed} «' cannot have happened at the times that "they pretend, according to the Calendar "regulated after the manner as it is at pre"sent; as we have found by calculation of "a great number of these eclipses.— F. "Couplet himself doubts of some of these "eclipses, by reason of the complement
"which
< e which the Chinese astronomers made to "one of their Kings, whom they congra'' tulated, for that an eclipse which they "had predicted had not happened: the "heaven they said having spared this mis"fortune. And this Father has left to "Mr. Hhevenot a manuscript of the same "eclipses which he has printed in his chro"nology, entitled eclipses verœ & false, "without distinguishing the one from the * other." *
If this then be true, which there can be no reason to doubt, then it does not appear, whether this eclipse, which Couplet here mentions, be not one of those eclipses which he calls falsa: it does not appear that Couplet believed, that this very eclipse happened at the time that is pretended: in short no argument can be drawn from the mention of eclipses in his chronology, that the Chinese ever observed such eclipses; or that there really were such; no nor that they were able even to calculate an eclipse, since some never happened which they predicted.
The next author, who is cited both by Huetius and by Dominique de Colonia is Father Adrian Greflony who published the
* Luberes Historical Relation of Siam, p. 2to.
history History of China under the government of the Tartars; wherein he gives a particular account of what happened in China from 1651 to 1669. In this he tells us of a Chinese, by name Yam-quem-Jiam, who wrote an answer to an apology for the christian religion which the Fathers had published in China.
This * " dangerous man", so F. Magaillam calls him,.n" pretends, says F. Grejlon, to "convict the christians of a falsehood in '{ relation to what they say touching an "eclipse of the sun at the time of the *« death of our Lord. He thinks that he "has got an unanswerable argument against ** us, because he does, NB. not findy that "this eclipse is taken any notice of in the *' History of China." Grêlon then goes on thus, 0 " But if one mould grant him, that
"the
* Nouvelle Relation de la Chine. Par, Gabriel de Magaillans. p. ioo.
n II pretend convaincre les Chrestiens de fausseté, sur ce qu'ils disent touchant l'Eclipse du soleil, au temps de la mort de nôtre seigneur. Il pense avoir une preuve invincible contre nous, parce qu'il ne trou»e point que cette Eclipse soit marquée dans l'histoire de la Chine. Grêlon» Histoire de la Chine
1. 2- C. f.
0 Mais quand on lui accorderoit, que les Historiens de la Chine ont marquée exactement toutes les Eclipses qui ont etè observées, ne devroit il pas considerer, que si lorsque cette eclipse commença dans la Judée, il estoit environ midy, il falloit que dans la Chine il fust presque cinq hours du soir, et
qu'ainsi "the Historians of China have exactly ta't ken notice of all the eclipses, which have "been observed, ought he not to consider, « that when this eclipse began in Judœay (< it was about noon; it ought therefore in "China to be near five at night, and con"sequently at most they could have seen << but the beginning of it. Nay, it was ne"cessary, in order to see this beginning of k the eclipse, that the sky should be clear;
for if it were at all cloudy (as it might "be) it is not at all surprizing, that, night "coming on, the eclipse should not be * observed in China at all". But
These excuses will not account for the difficulty, For, I. Pekin lies in such a degree of latitude, that in the very beginning of April the sun sets at near, if not full, 7 a-clock: and consequently they might have seen it during its whole progress. And 2. Why is this supposition made of its being possibly cloudy in China, in order to account
qu'ainfi on ne pouvoit au plus y en avoir veu que le commencement. II falloit metme pour remarquer ce commencement que le Ciel fust serain. Que si le Ciel estoit couvert, wmme il le pouvoit estre, il n'cst pas estrange, que la nuit sitt»cnant, l'Eclipse n'ait pas este obfervee dans la Chiae.
for for their not seeing this eclipse? Why is not the very Chinese book quoted, in which 'tis asserted, that in facJ this eclipse was observed? Could F. Grêlon have possibly made such a supposition against a Chinese that averred, that he "could not find that this «* eclipse was taken any notice of in the his'* tory of China" if he had had his vouchers by him for the fact ? If it were so cloudy that the eclipse was not. seen or "observed"; then in effect Vam-quam-Jiem's assertion is yielded to him: and what then must become of the Father's assertion, that their histories do take notice of it? So that the attempt to answer the Chinese author by such a supposition, amounts to little less than giving up the point.
F. Greslon goes on, and 'tis this that is the remarkable passage; P " The missionaries '< of China beg of the Mathematicians of
«' Europe,
t Les Millionaires de la Chine prient les Mathematiciens d'Europe de vouloir prendre la peine de verifier, si l'an 31 de la »ie de Nostre Seigneur» environ le mois d'Avril, qui reseondoit cette année a la troisième lune Chinoise il y eut une Éclipse de Soleil ; fie si elle pouvoit arriver naturellement. Il« ont sujet de souhaitter qu'on les echirciflè sur ce point de doctrine: parce que l'histoire de la Chine marque, qu'il y eut celle année là une Eclipse de Soleil contre le cours naturel des Astres, et qu'elle fut si extraordinaire que ¥ Empereur Quamvu-ti en fut estrangement estonné. Les Chinois ont accoustomé


«' Europe, that they would take the pains "to examine, whether in the 32d year '< of our Lord, about the month of «' April, which answered this year to the "third moon among the Chinese, there was "any eclipse of the sun, and whether it « could happen naturally. They have rea'< son to wish that they would clear up t' this point of knowledge for them : be(C cause the History of China remarks, that <c there ivas this year an eclipse of the sun, "contrary to the natural course of the stars; "and that it was so extraordinary, that the "emperour ^uam-vu-ti was much astonifh"ed at it. The Chinese are accustomed "to give to their Emperors the title of Ho"ly. e. g. They call the edicts of the em
de donner a leurs Empereurs le titre de Saint; par example, ils appellent les Edits de l'Empereur Chim chy, c'est a dire Sainte volunté, saint commandement; 8c quand ils veulent dire le jour de la naisiance de l'Empereur, ils dissent, Chim-Tan, c'est a dire jour de h satnt Naijf*nte. Cet Empereur après avoir »eu cette prodigeuse eclipse renonça a ce titre de Saint, 8c re" conneut qu'il ne luy estoit pas deû. Si cette Eclipse ne peut pas arri»er naturellement, ce que nous ne pouvons pas verifier tcy faute des livres, nous dirions que ce fust l'eclipscqui arriva au temps de la passton de nostre Seigneur, 8c cette responec seroit beaucoup plus plausible pour convaincre les Chinois: il faudroit suivre le opinion de ceux qui soutiennent que N. S. mourut la j2 année de son âge au mois d'A»ril Adrten. Greflon Histoire de la Chine. 1. a. c. f
M "peror * peror Chim-chy, that is to say, holy will, «* holy commandment; and when they would '* speak of the day of the birth of the em"peror, they say, Chim-Tan, i. e. the day v of the holy birth. This Emperor after "having seen this prodigious eclipse renoun"ced the title of Holy, and acknowledged ** that it was not due to him. If this t' eclipse could not happen naturally, which "we cannot here examine for want of "books, we should say, that it was the "eclipse^ which happened at the time of "the passion of our Lord; and this answer "would be much more plausible to con"vince the Chinese. 'Tis necessary to fol"low the opinion of them who maintain "that our Lord died in the ^ year of his "age, in the month of April? GreJIon. His. de la Chine. 1. 2. c. 5.
Here are many remarkable circumstances in this relation. As
1. F. Gre'Ion says, "The Missionaries beg *' of the Mathematicians of Europe, that "they would examine, whether in the 32d "year of our Lord, about the month of "April, which answered to the third moon "among the Chinese, there was any eclipse "of the sun; and whether it could happen , 4 « natuu naturally" Now^, fake it either way; if there was upon computation a natural eclipse of the sun at that time, /. e. about April A. D. 32. such an eclipse could not possibly be to the purpose; because the eclipse at the time of our Saviour's death must have been at the full moon, and therefore not natural, nor computable. If there was such an eclipse as did happen preternaturally, then all the Mathematicians of Europe could not compute it.
2. He adds, The Missionaries " have rea"son to wi/h that the Mathematicians of ** Europe would clear up this point for ** them". Suppose they were to find an eclipse this year about the first of April, or the last of March in the year assigned, /. e. at the new moon, this could not give us any satisfaction, because "tis certain that Christ died not in this year, but in the following one. Besides ; an eclipse capable of computation, could not answer their wijhes, nor at all " clear up this "point for them"; because such an eclipse would be a natural one, contrary to their own account of that which the Chinese History takes notice of. For
M 2 3. The 3. The History of China takes notice, that there was in such a year "an eclipse "es the sun contrary to the course of the "stars". So says F. Grejlon: But Yam-qumstem denies there was any such. And that there was none is most probable, because F. Grejlon's pretence is, that truly they could not prove it, for "want of books." This is plainly false, if they had books that mentioned it in April, A. D. 32, in $uam-vu-ti's reign. Father Adam was then at Pekin and he was a great astronomer: he 1 "had reformed the Calendar "of China, which was full of faults, in "relation to the calculation of eclipses, "the equinoxes, and solstices", p. 3. He and F. Ferdinand Verbiefi understood this matter perfectly well, and could compute eclipses to the utmost nicety, much beyond the partisans of Yam-quam-Jiem; and triumphed over all opposition i>y means of their great skill and exactness in this point. Why then should the Fathers send to Europe for help, when they had as good
* II y avclt eu deux ans auparavant deux autret Peres qui J'avoit ayde ( viz. Pere Adam) reformer ie Calendrier de la Chine, lequel eltoit plein de fault's, touchant le calcul des Eclipses, des Equinoxes, & des Solstices. Greslon. 1. t. c- t.
astro
astronomers for this purpose at Pekin? "Father Verbiesl had minutely calculated an eclipse " six months before it happen"ed, and had foretold the day, the hour, "the minute, &c. in which it was to hap"pen". Why could not he have computed a past eclipse in a given year as well as any Mathematicians in Europe?
But he "wanted books". What books? Not sure the New Testament, which asserts a darkness, which the Fathers would have to be an eclipse? Not Chinese Books, or at least a Book, which mentions this eclipse in <Z>uam-vu-ti's reign, or the circumstance of his laying aside the title of Holiness: for that hook or books is pretended to be had. Was it then Mathematical Tables? No; for in the tribunal of Mathematicks they had all these necessaries, both in the Chinese method, and in their own: and they understood both these methods so well as to rectify the Chinese method by the European method: and had done so long before
* Le pere Ferdtnand Verbiest l'a»oit calcule pour luy, (viz. pour le P- Adam qui n'estoit pas peu calculer cette eclipse a cause de sa Paralyse) & avoit presenre en son nom son calcul au Lipou (i. e. Tribunal des Rites) fix mois avant qu' elle arrivals, avtc la figute de la destne eclipse; determinant le jour, l'itcurQj & la mtnute, &c. G;eflon. 1- 2. c. tf.

They knew too from the pretended Chinese account, that this eclipse was "contrary to "the course of the stars". Which way then could the European Mathematicians help them to an account of what might more plausibly convince the Chinese f Nay they say themselves that it was "contrary "to the course of the stars", and then desire our Mathematicians to compute whether this eclipse was regular, or not. Lastly, Why does he say, " that 'tis necessary "to follow the opinion of those who main"tain that our Saviour died in the 32d year "of his age in the month of April" f Is the time of our Saviour's death to be adjusted to an eclipse, and ascertained by That; Or is not the death of Christ to be fixed to the true year in which he died, whatever becomes of the Chinese eclipse? The good Father plainly wanted a "plausible argument to "convince the Chineje"; and is willing to have the death of Christ fixed a year sooner than it really happened, in order to gain Proselytes to Christ. The good end was to sanctify the means!
But
But aster all, what is it that is pretended to be in these annals? F. Couplet cites only thus much, Anno Cycli 28. Imperil vero 7. Lun. 3. die ultimo, memorabilia eclipfis tot alii: the rest is F. Couplet's observation; viz. that their annals take notice that this eclipse came before the time, i. e. sooner than they had computed it. And as eclipses were deemed the forerunners of misfortunes to their Kings, so in consequence of that notion, to come sooner than its time, was deemed to hajlen the ca^ lamity. F. Grejlon who finds, or pretends to find, an eclipse of the sun this year in the Chinese annals, does not say as Couplet does, that it "came before its time"; but, that it was *' contrary to the course of the Jlars"; and yet he desires a computation of it. Couplet might do right to desire it; Grelon ri-> diculousty: and supposing it were computed, and found that there was a total eclipse, the inference which both of them aimed at would not follow, viz. that such a computed eclipse, was that at our Saviour's passion ; because our Saviour died not at a new but at a full moon: and if upon computation no such total eclipse were found, ( as 'tis impoflible it should,) it could not be inferr'd, that this in the Chinese annals
was was the darkness at Christ's death, because Christ did not die in the year these Fathers have fixed upon; but in the A. P. I. 4746. A. D. 33.
CONCLUSION.
THUS then this case stands. Every writer that cites Phlegon after Asricanus, has cited him as speaking of the darkness which happened at our Saviour's passion ; notwithstanding they have fixed upon different years just as their Hypotheses have led them. Now since Phlegon was 'an "exact man in his account of the Olympiads", 'tis certain that he fixed this eclipse to some one certain year. Africanus who first quoted Phlegon, and applied what he said to the death of Christ, must neceflarily find what Phlegon said, in that year which included part of the 4th year of the 201st, and part of the first year of the 202d Olympiad, because Africanu s fixed the death of Christ to that year. And 'tis not to be imagined, that he mould meet with an eclipse in the 4th year of the 202d Olym
5 Olympiadarum egregius jsupputator. Hieron.
piad, piad, and then by so gross a mistake, or fraud, cite it as to his purpose, so many years sooner. If it be asked, how Euse&ius, or Jerom, or Philofwtus, came to cite it so many years later, if it stood in Phlegon, where I conceive it stood? I answer; that these men, from the authority of Afrkanus, took for granted, that Pblegon had spoke concerning the darkness at the death of Christ; and then, whatever year they fixed for the death of Christ, whether the 2d, xst 3d, or 4th year of that Olympiad, they quoted Pblegon's testimony still as to their purpose: and so they might have done, had they supposed our Saviour to have lived as long as 1 Irenœus supposed him to live. But this I submit as a mere conjecture to the judgment of the unbiassed reader. „
That there was a real eclipse in the Ist year of the 202d Olympiad, i. e. in the year which Asricanus, 6tc. supposed Christ to die in, appears by calculation. Phlegon's words are express and clear, asserting an eclipse os the sun; and express such an effect as a
J IrtwtUJ- ]. a. c. if.
N natural
natural eclipse in a serene day would produce; but are not applicable to any other 'kind of extraordinary darkness. His words cither relate to a true natural eclipse ; or else, he has used such a manner of expression as never any one used before his time; nor, (except upon occasion of this very darkness, and that too from mistaking Phkg9n^) has any one writer, I believe, ever since. . What the Chinese annals have said, .('if they have said any thing „, at all,) 'tis evident, does not "relate to our purr pose ;' for'1 as 'tis reported by the Jesuits it was not in the year.; that Christ: died-; and 'tis remarkable that the Chinese authors' expressly deny that any such eclipse at all is found in their Histories. Since then,i£ appears that there was a total,, central, eclipse in the Ist year os„the 202d Olympiad, and no mention is made of any thing preternatural, or irregular, by Phlegom 'tis but reasonable to conclude, that, he intended to take notice of what was regular and natural, just as all writers take notice of 'the- common or. i remarkable . eclipses. If he is not thus to be understood, his language must be perverted- quite, and his words must loose their ordinary constant

signification.  As he is allowed to be &n exacl mast; in hi? accounts of what hap* pened in . each year of each Olympiad? 'tis more reasonable to suppose that Africanu s cited him right, than that Eufebius did so ; because 'tis better to suppose anea*. sy mistake arising from an hypothesis, tha1* a downright premeditated fr^ud. And since no time of the year, nor any thing extraordinary, is mentioned by Phlegon, 'tis more reasonable to understand him as speaking of a time of the year when a real eclipse did happen} and that Africanu s being right in the year, mistook only the time of the year; than to suppose Phlegon to speak of a time of the year when no eclipse did or could happen, eyen supposing that he did speak of the same year, when an eclipse and a preternatural darkness did both hap^ pen. And lastly since as good evidence, and as many vouchers * are to be brought for Phlegon'$ eclipse happening either the fourth year of the 2ols? or the fir [i year of the 202d Olympiad, as for it's happening the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad, (such are Africanu s and Origen, against Eufebius and jferom;) and since in fact there was such an eclipse as Phlegon describes in the 1st year;
and and the alteration of the Numerals in Greek, from an A to a A, /. f. from the first to the fourth is so very small, that the mistake is very easy: I think that V« most probable, if not certain, that Phlegm mentioned this eclipse in the first year of die aoad Olympiad} and that Eusebius mistook in citing it under the Fourth.

[ExCBooster]

Yep, you can read the whole thing on Google Books for free, if you really feel like it...

 

Seems like every last one of these sources comes from Sykes... this is going to be easier than I thought...

 

You'll also notice that Sykes DOES NOT AGREE THAT THE "CHINESE" SOURCES ARE LEGIT. (I love how it's just "Chinese" sources, they don't even get more specific.) He's more interested in making fun of the people who support the eclipse theory.

 

Let's put this in historical context. Sykes was an ANGLICAN scholar writing in the 1720s. He would LOVE to humiliate the CATHOLICS. And that's what this pamphlet is really all about. Anything he can do to show that the Catholics are wrong, and out of date, and generally to be made fools of, he will do.

 

Here's the full title of the sequel pamphlet, published a year later: A defence of the dissertation on the eclipse mentioned by Phlegon: wherein is further shewn, that that eclipse had no relation to the darkness which happened at our Saviour's passion: and Mr. Whiston's observations are particularly considered.

 

So, claiming that all of these people supported the eclipse theory is just plain wrong, and ignores the historical complexities of the time. Next we'll get into why this whole thing, darkness, supernatural or natural, is bunk.

[Kris]

Yes-- Sykes is attempting to refute the Chinese evidence.  I guess where I am getting hung up is where did this story first arise?  Could there have been a weird event recorded in the Chinese Records that indicated something weird happened in 32ad?  Sykes spends a bit of time stating that the dating of this purported eclipse in 32ad would not fall during Passover time, which lends credence that it is not related to any gospel events.  Ex C Booster-- with your knowledge of the Far East, do you know how their calendaring worked out back then?  It states that this eclipse took place on the last day of the 3rd moon, so that would appear to be the 3rd month?-- Sykes states that the Chinese New Year began in March.  Is this correct?  If so, wouldn't this eclipse  have had to occurred in May of 32ad?  Much to late for Passover-- which was April 14th of that year.  Or, are the inter-calculary months that would need to taken into consideration and would those add or subtract months?

 

I would like to theorize that the Fathers just made this up, or used spurious records to support a crucifixion that fit their timelines so that they could use this to preach to the Chinese.  I think that this is what Vam-quam-Jiem felt they were doing as he reports that there was NO record of such an event.  And, like you said, it does not appear that this caused a miraculous conversion.  The fact that this came up at all is stressful to me.  I need to reconcile this fast before my head starts trying to tell me that Jesus is trying to prove himself to me.  Ugghh. 

[par4dcourse]

I'm no history expert but as ECB points out, it's hard to get excited over an event with such vague sources. Somebody read somebody else and talked to "sources" who knew somebody's second cousin who's hairdresser heard something.

[Kris]

I agree that the sources are vague, but what bothers me is that they are there at all!! 

 

I wish I knew a little bit more about how the Chinese Calendar worked and if perhaps the Fathers may have mixed up an eclipse that occurred in September, 33 CE and went right over China.  However, that doesn't really match up with the 3rd moon, etc. 

 

Like I said, I really just want to disregard all of this, and say-- no big deal.  But, this is a reference to something weird happening around one of the purported dates of the crucifixion.  Granted, by all accounts, it appears that the reports are being made solely by Christians-- who are reporting this out.  And it does appear that there is rebuttal from the Chinese that this report is incorrect, so that helps my case-- but like I said earlier, it still kind of freaks me out a bit. 

 

I tried to look at crucifixion info to see why certain dates are selected over others, and really, there is support for dates ranging from 29ad-- 34, 35ad.  Interestingly, some different dates have the same arguments, etc.  So, it is really a confusing mess as to when Jesus should have died. I seriously don't really give a shit, other than the fact that I don't want to believe in any miracles associated with him.  That is why I would really like to debunk this, if possible, in my mind.  If he is just a man, or even non-existent then I don't need to worry about him.  But if there is historical proof out there for him, and it relates to some sort of miracle being manifest-- then that is a little harder for me to just laugh off and ignore. 

 

I would honestly give anything to not have ever heard anything at all about Jesus-- and I really wish I could quit digging around-- but I am usually trying to confirm my lack of belief when I run across things like this that make me want to say-- hmmm!   

[par4dcourse]

This fear of xianity being right will fade eventually. Until then, research away. We've had very few reconverts, and none with logic and facts involved.

[Kris]

Boy Par, I hope you are right. I am going about 5 years now, and I am not lying when I saw this issue kept me awake all night--- worrying that this is some sort of proof that the gospels have historical verification.

 

But, the weird thing is that since I was already freaked out, I decided to google eclipse , china 32ad, darkness-- and nothing came up! I am not sure why Christians (especially those that support the 32 ad per Daniel theory) aren't all over this! Did it die out in the 1700s? The whole thing is really weird.

[centauri]

 

...I tried to look at crucifixion info to see why certain dates are selected over others, and really, there is support for dates ranging from 29ad-- 34, 35ad.

That alone should ease your anxiety, when the dates range in this manner.

This is also exhibited in the famous Dan 9 apologetic in which various Christians have tried to establish an exact date of death for Jesus by purposely distorting and mistranslating Dan 9 to suit their purpose.

They can't even agree among themselves.

The fact still remains that there is no contemporary evidence, other than that provided by cult writers, for the crucifixion of "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

Interestingly, some different dates have the same arguments, etc.  So, it is really a confusing mess as to when Jesus should have died. I seriously don't really give a shit, other than the fact that I don't want to believe in any miracles associated with him.  That is why I would really like to debunk this, if possible, in my mind.

Well, it might help to ask yourself why the biggest event in world history, that of the dead rising out of their graves and strolling into Jerusalem shortly after the crucifixion (Matt 27:52-53), is never recorded by anyone other than the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

This would have been a monumental event, but nobody records it other than a cult writer.

It doesn't even get recorded by Luke, who wrote his gospel to confirm events that related to Jesus.

If one writer was prone to embellish his story telling, why should you trust anything associated with this cult?

 

If he is just a man, or even non-existent then I don't need to worry about him.  But if there is historical proof out there for him, and it relates to some sort of miracle being manifest-- then that is a little harder for me to just laugh off and ignore.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was quite famous during his lifetime.

However, such fame is not evident outside of the cult writings.

http://agnosticreview.com/fame.htm

 

I would honestly give anything to not have ever heard anything at all about Jesus-- and I really wish I could quit digging around-- but I am usually trying to confirm my lack of belief when I run across things like this that make me want to say-- hmmm!

There could have been a cult leader called "Jesus", but there is no compelling reason to trust the New Testament as an accurate source of information.

[par4dcourse]

The birthdate of the jesus figurehead isn't firmly established, so a 32 a.d. Eclipse may not even coincide with the alledged nailin' party.

Worry about "missing" nukes and nut bag terrorists. They are real and verifiable.

[Kris]

Yeah-- I know you guys are right. I am really trying my darnedest to not let this eat at me--- I keep reminding myself that Jesus told his apostles that he would return in their lifetime-- the ultimate failed prophecy!! Regardless of eclipses-- Jesus failed to keep his word.

[Gamecock1973]

Yeah, have to agree with Centauri.  What about all those resurrected people wandering around Jerusalem?  Seems there would have been SOME other historical verification of this event!  What about the temple curtain being torn in two?  It was 4 inches thick, 60 feet x 30 feet, and took 300 men to carry it!  It is AMAZING that this event could have also happened with ZERO historical confirmation from any source...How in the world did they keep this secret?  It seems at least one priest or temple worker would have blabbed about such an event.

 

The fact that there may have been an eclipse around the year Jesus died is a ridiculous argument for the crucifixion.  There are FAR MORE problematic issues the history of this biblical event must account for (which it doesn't).  Put your mind at ease.

[Overcame Faith]

Yeah-- I know you guys are right. I am really trying my darnedest to not let this eat at me--- I keep reminding myself that Jesus told his apostles that he would return in their lifetime-- the ultimate failed prophecy!! Regardless of eclipses-- Jesus failed to keep his word.

Kris, don't let the end-timers who will say and do anything to convince themselves and others that their view of things is correct be your guide. Theirs is the path of defeat and subjgation which is not true.

 

Always go to the source of your concerns and NEVER allow the end timers view to persuade you. That source is the Bible. According to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, there was darkness from noon until three PM. That cannot be a solar eclipse. It is physically impossible because the darkness from a total solar eclipse lasts only a few minutes, NOT three hours. Therefore, whether or not someone in China reported a solar eclipse in 32 c.e. is irrelevant. Even if it was reported, which is almost 100% doubtful, it makes no difference. Because that is not what is reported in those gospels. What the Chinese may have reported as a total solar eclipse could not have been what the three gospels tell us that happened.

 

The gospel writers were trying to portray the crucifixion as something of great importance. So, they tell us that there was darkness for three hours. That is merely a literary device and nothing more. No total solar eclipse could possibly in any circumstance create darkness for such a length of time.

 

Do not keep allowing yourself to fall victim to the powerful imaginations of the end-timers. They lie!

[Kris]

I think the thing I am tripping on is the fact that I CAN'T find an actual eclipse that occurred in china in 32 ad on the NASA elclpse page. I would actually feel better if I could-- because then I could tie this event to something logical. I did find some weird stories about smoke balls blocking the sun and stuff in early Chinese literature.

[Overcame Faith]

I think the thing I am tripping on is the fact that I CAN'T find an actual eclipse that occurred in china in 32 ad on the NASA elclpse page. I would actually feel better if I could-- because then I could tie this event to something logical. I did find some weird stories about smoke balls blocking the sun and stuff in early Chinese literature.

Think logically, Kris. The very fact that you cannot find evidence of a total solar eclipse in China in 32 c.e. proves that you have nothing to worry about!

[mymistake]

What about all the dead people rising up and wondering around town?  

 

Matt 27: 52-53

 

 

⁵² And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

⁵³ And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

The Bible can't be true if only the mundane parts are true.  The wacky, insane, nutjob parts have to be true in order for the Bible to be true.  So dead bodies had to be animated and wandering around town.  Strange that nobody thought this was important enough to write down in a historical document.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Josephus doesn't say anything about the sun becoming dark or about an earthquake.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Kris.

 

As an amateur astronomer perhaps I can be of some help to you on this issue?

 

OvercameFaith was on the right track when he wrote,

"Think logically, Kris.  The very fact that you cannot find evidence of a total solar eclipse in China in 32 c.e. proves that you have nothing to worry about!"

 

All kinds of eclipse (total, annular and lunar) are easily predictable because the Sun, Moon and Earth all move on well-defined and precisely measured orbits.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment  We've been measuring the Earth-Moon distance to millimeter accuracy since 2002 and to centimeter accuracy since 1969. 

Accurate knowledge of this distance has given us the ability to 'wind the clock' forward and predict exactly where and when eclipses will take place with millisecond precision.  Likewise, if we can do this for future eclipses, we can also 'wind the clock' back and say exactly where and when eclipses took place centuries and millennia in the past.

 

So, if there's no evidence to be found for a total solar eclipse in China in 32 c.e., that's because... there wasn't one.

Computers can calculate exactly where the Sun, Moon and Earth would have been on that day, to the second and to the inch.  This is the sort of task that even simple computer programs excel at.  Here... knock yourself out! 

 

http://astro.nineplanets.org/astrosoftware.html

http://stellarium.org/

http://www.nightfirescientific.com/planetarium_programs.html

 

I should also point out that highly accurate knowledge of eclipses hasn't been confined to the last 60 years or so.  This link... http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/eclipse/eclipsecycles.htm ...is a very detailed index of ancient documents from many different cultures that record the dates and times of eclipses - and not just ones they witnessed, but also ones they predicted to occur, centuries and millennia in advance of their time.   The Babylonian and Mayan cultures don't exist any more, but their science is still very good indeed.  After all, wasn't there a whole lot of hot air recently about the end of the Mayan calendar meaning the end of the world?  Baloney, yes ...but you'll notice that nobody questioned the outstanding accuracy of the Mayan's predictive math, right?  Why?  Because these (so-called) primitive people were just as smart as we are.  They just didn't have the technology that we do today, that's all. .

.

.

.

Now, even if you get a planetarium program and tap in the year 32 c.e. and it tells you that a total solar eclipse did happen that year, that doesn't mean the Bible is true, that there is a God and that you're going to hell, ok?  (Calm down and take some deep breaths.)

 

Here's why.

The Wiki page on total solar eclipses has two very helpful illustrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geometry_of_a_Total_Solar_Eclipse.svg

Please note that the Moon's shadow is cast in two distinct zones, the Umbra (where a total eclipse is seen by observers on the Earth) and the Penumbra (where a partial eclipse is seen).  Very important fact... the umbra is no more than 200 miles wide!  So only a tiny fraction of the Earth is covered by the moon's full shadow and is in total darkness. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_eclipses_2001-2020.GIF

Using computer predictions scientists made a map of the path an eclipse's umbra will take as it moves across the Earth.  As the Sun, Moon and Earth move relative to each other on the orbits and as the Earth rotates on it's axis, so the umbra carves out a curved path across our planet.  (Notice we get a total eclipse on Aug 21, 2017?)

 

Therefore, when an ancient Chinese or Mayan or Greek writes about a total eclipse they witnessed, they must have been within the umbral shadow of the Moon as it traced out it's path across the Earth.  There's no other way of seing a total solar eclipse!  So the whole world cannot be plunged into total darkness.  Nor can even most of the Sunward-facing half of the Earth.  That means that if a Chinaman did see a total solar eclipse in 32 c.e., it's path would also have had to have crossed over Jerusalem for the gospel writers to have seen it.  If the path never crossed that city... game over!

 

Also, such is the speed that the planets move in their orbits that a total eclipse can last no longer than 7 minutes and 31 seconds, when seen from any fixed point on the Earth. (See Occurence and Cycles, on the Wiki page.)  Even the duration of a partial eclipse can be no longer than 2 hours and a few minutes. Here's a link to the stats on last years Australian total eclipse.  http://www.eclipse2012.com/time_and_duration  Please compare the 'Start Partial' and 'End Partial' times and note that each value is given for a fixed location.  Just short of 2 hours, right?  Therefore Kris, even though the synoptic gospels agree that darkness covered Jerusalem for three hours (See Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44) when Jesus was on the cross... this is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! 

 

To accept that scripture is accurate about this is to throw away everything we know to be factual and real.

To accept the Bible as reliable about this is to overthrow science in favor of superstition.

To accept that the gospels are trustworthy about this is to commit intellectual suicide.

It just doesn't matter what Phlegon, Thallus, Eusebius or some chinese guy wrote down long ago.

If today's science says this impossible, then you have two stark choices my friend.

 

1. Go with the science and be honest with yourself.

 

2. Go with the supernatural and become a hypoctite.

 

Please note that I mean no disrespect to you personally, when I write this Kris.

 

It's just that we ALL live our lives depending in every-which-way upon science to feed us, clothe us, keep us employed and to provide us with good health and material well-being.  Therefore, to reap the benefits of science but to deny that we rely on it is hypocrisy, plain and simple.  To use what science gives us but then to refuse it admit that it adequately explains the real world is just as hypocritical.  Likewise, to say that astronomical science holds good at all times except for the day Jesus was crucified is to hypoctically believe hocus-pocus over well-supported scientific fact.

 

Btw, the same principle applies to Elijah commanding the Sun to stand still or a 6-day Creation in the book of Genesis.  It's hypocritical to accept these things as historical facts if you live by and use the very thing (science) that declares them impossible.

 

Food for thought, huh?

 

Anyway, I hope this has been of some help to you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[gall]

Boy Par, I hope you are right. I am going about 5 years now, and I am not lying when I saw this issue kept me awake all night--- worrying that this is some sort of proof that the gospels have historical verification.

 

But, the weird thing is that since I was already freaked out, I decided to google eclipse , china 32ad, darkness-- and nothing came up! I am not sure why Christians (especially those that support the 32 ad per Daniel theory) aren't all over this! Did it die out in the 1700s? The whole thing is really weird.

 

you should pick up a good fantasy or sci fi novel and read the crap out of it. You sound like you need to disconnect from this "real life" fantasy stuff and just enter a real fantasy world to get that fix there. Learn to do what you are doing now for fun and fun alone and the other feelings will fade. We all need a little vacation from our reality. The universe is spinning regardless of our existence. Nothing going on out there is wrong. The universe is as it should be. You are totally ok and the 1700's were a long long time ago. In the year 2700 people might look back and ask some questions about fact and fiction but in the end they will make of it what they will and probably not the same thing we make of it. Just live man.

[ExCBooster]

I agree that the sources are vague, but what bothers me is that they are there at all!! 

 

I wish I knew a little bit more about how the Chinese Calendar worked and if perhaps the Fathers may have mixed up an eclipse that occurred in September, 33 CE and went right over China.  However, that doesn't really match up with the 3rd moon, etc. 

 

Like I said, I really just want to disregard all of this, and say-- no big deal.  But, this is a reference to something weird happening around one of the purported dates of the crucifixion.  Granted, by all accounts, it appears that the reports are being made solely by Christians-- who are reporting this out.  And it does appear that there is rebuttal from the Chinese that this report is incorrect, so that helps my case-- but like I said earlier, it still kind of freaks me out a bit.

"but what bothers me is that they are there at all!" - Kris, if you read Sykes, he doesn't think they are: "purported Chinese sources" (emphasis mine) both of his pamphlets on this issue are dedicated to proving that it's all lies made up by those silly Catholics. Don't forget what I've said before about giving people way to much credibility for truth-telling. I see you've already gotten to the astronomy bits, so I'll tell you why "there is a rebuttal from the Chinese that this report is incorrect."

 

In the 1700s in Europe, with the Enlightenment going on, and the first strenuous round of questioning of established institutions, including the church, China had a near-mythical status. Chinese sources, and Chinese leaders were referenced, whenever a European needed a "Other" source to show up other Europeans on how backward they were. They did, indeed, make stuff up out of thin air, and call it Chinese.

 

The pamphlets exist in a wider historical context, and one in which Europeans were using China as a parable for European problems, and one in which not a lot was actually known about China anyway, and virtually every source from Europe regarding China in this period is basically a fable. Which brings me to the next very important point.

 

This near-total ignorance is especially ironic, because China has one of the oldest traditions of systematic written record keeping in world history, as well as a particular expertise in predicting eclipses. What was China doing in 32 AD? This date is smack in the middle of the reign of Emperor Guangwu of Han, who established the Latter Han Dynasty. Yes, there are, in fact, voluminous historical writings on this time period. (Kind of obsessive record keepers...) If you read Classical Chinese, you can buy a copy of the (massive) Book of Later Han, on Amazon. As for astronomy, the Chinese were one of the first people to have a mathematical method for predicting eclipses. Read all about that from NASA. Yes, there's reams of records on that, too (eclipse dates were important to their culture for helping choose good dates for Imperial ceremonies). They even had computing devices, by at least the Ming Dynasty, in the 1400s, for the express purpose of tracking the movement of the sun, moon, and stars. Beijing Ancient Observatory. (Whoa, that's cool.) So, while Europe in 20 BC was busy attributing eclipses to supernatural events (look at the Bible...), China was way ahead of them, and busy building elaborate astronomical equipment. Given the importance of eclipses to their culture, and the accuracy of Chinese astronomical knowledge at the time, if a Chinese scholar says he's been over the sources, and none of this has any backing, none of this eclipse and crucifixion nonsense has any backing.

 

 

In closing, I'd urge you to consider the words, contemporaneous with Sykes, of the Kangxi Emperor, regarding Europeans, their Chinese scholarship, and their religion...

 

Emperor Kangxi on the subject of the Chinese Rites Controversy:

Reading this proclamation, I have concluded that the Westerners are petty indeed. It is impossible to reason with them because they do not understand larger issues as we understand them in China. There is not a single Westerner versed in Chinese works, and their remarks are often incredible and ridiculous. To judge from this proclamation, their religion is no different from other small, bigoted sects of Buddhism or Taoism. I have never seen a document which contains so much nonsense. From now on, Westerners should not be allowed to preach in China, to avoid further trouble.

[ExCBooster]

Chinese sources funtimes:

 

Read about the Chinese Rites controversy, which ultimately got missionaries banned (see Imperial decree, above) in China, on account of preachers being, wait for it... intolerant.

 

If you want to read Chinese historical records, some of the cooler ones have been translated into English. This is a pull-down menu for fan-translated biographies of officials and generals and so on of the Three Kingdoms period of Chinese history. (At and after the fall of the Latter Han dynasty, in 220 AD.) I'll give an example: Guan Yu, from the Sanguozhi. [Note all the notes, and citations - that's because there are a lot of records that had to be gone through to compile these biographies, and the writer wanted to leave information about where they got it, so anyone reading it could find the originals, themselves.] So, no records of a "day of darkness"? In China? Where they really take records, and eclipses, whatever the cause, very seriously? Said "darkness" never happened. End of Story.

[sdelsolray]

I think the thing I am tripping on is the fact that I CAN'T find an actual eclipse that occurred in china in 32 ad on the NASA elclpse page. I would actually feel better if I could-- because then I could tie this event to something logical. I did find some weird stories about smoke balls blocking the sun and stuff in early Chinese literature.

Total solar eclipses only appear on a small band of the Earth's surface, with a wider band making up a partial solar eclipse.  You may want to determine if a total solar eclipse occurring in China would also occur in the Middle East.

[Kris]

Ok-- here is my core problem with this whole thing:

 

Looking up eclipses and the fact that there was not an actual eclipse in China in 32ad does not resolve my issue.  In fact, it lends more credence to the Christian theory that this might be a miracle occurrence.  I would actually be more relieved to find a damn eclipse because then there would be a natural explanation.

 

32ad is a big year for people who date the crucifixion--Some people think that Daniel's prophecy had this year in mind when the "anointed one" was cut off, there was a blood moon (When Peter talks about this at Pentecost), and there are some who state that Jesus wasn't crucified on a Friday-- and that helps with the three days and three nights.  So, I can't summarily dismiss this year like Sykes did.

 

There were at least three authors who recorded something about this eclipse-- they all had a little something different to say, but they did have something.  So, I can say that they made it up, but I really can't prove that.  I can assert that the Chinese gentleman could not find this in any histories, but perhaps he did not look at the same material that they did?  This is a confusing thing-- and again, I can't just dismiss it out of hand because SOMETHING was reported at one time.  Now, it is entirely possible that the Jesuits made up something to get more Christian converts, or they mixed up a date, or the date was recorded wrong in the Chinese histories, but I can't absolutely prove any of that.  So, in my mind, I can't resolve my worry with this thought.

 

The ONLY thing that I think I can legitimately hang my hat on would be the timing as it was reported by Father Couplet-- when he stated that this occurred on the last day of the third moon in 32ad.   Sykes argues that the Chinese started their New Year in March and by his calculations, the last day of the third moon would be in May-- too late for the Passover.   If I can somehow prove this-- then I have something tangible to hang my hat on.  Even if something weird was reported in 32ad-- it would not have been during Passover, and thus could not be related to Jesus.  So, if anyone can help me with Chinese New Year and how it was calculated and if the March date is accurate, I would be really grateful. 

 

I am not going to lie when I say that the last few months are some of the worst that I have lived through-- I have posted a lot on this site about things that have been bothering me-- and honestly, this latest thing has sent me to a really dark place.  I woke up almost suicidal over all of this today-- I don't know if I want to live if something like this can't be resolved in my mind.  I don't know if I can handle having to go back to church if I can't resolve in my mind whether or not this somehow validates what the gospels have to say.  I really need help here. 

[florduh]

An eclipse lasts about 5 minutes. I think the record is a bit over 7 minutes. I don't see the relevance. Maybe I missed something, but I don't even have any evidence of when the Jesus character died, when he lived, or even if he lived. I do have evidence that the Bible is unreliable for many reasons.