Mt 27:45 Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land.

Mk 15:33 Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.

Lk 23:44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 23:45 because the sun’s light failed.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the significance of this event, what can we say about what actually happened?

Frst. a couple of notes about the text itself.

The expression translated ‘the land’ could also be rendered ‘the earth’.  So, based on this, the darkness could have been relatively local or more widespread.

In Luke’s account, some manuscripts say ‘the sun was eclipsed’.  However, this does not necessarily imply a solar eclipse as understood by modern astronomy.  It might just refer to a darkening of the sun.  See (c), below.

Several explanations have been proposed.

(a) Fiction?

Many commentators regard this darkness as symbolic, rather than literal.  So Taylor, Fitzmyer, Gundry and others.

Mark Hoffman wonders why Luke has inserted his account of this phenomenon at precisely the point where Mk 15:34 records the cry of dereliction.  He surmises that Luke may have read Mark’s ελωι (or Matthew’s ηλι) as ηλιος.  Further, Mark’s ἐγκατέλιπές (‘you abandoned’) is changed by Luke to ἐκλιπόντος.  Luke’s reason for making these changes was theological: he preferred the astronomical impossibility of an eclipse to the idea that God abandoned his Son.  I regard this line of reasoning as merely conjectural.

I accept the historicity of this event on the testimony of the Synoptic Gospels.  However, some corroboration is available:-

According to Julius Africanus (3rd century), a 1st-century Greek historian, Thallus, mentions the darkness that occurred at this time.  (Blomberg, in DJG)

Both Origen and Eusebius quote the historian Phlegon, who described an extraordinary darkness that occurred around the time of the crucifixion.  (Geldenhuys)

As for the notion that the phenomenon was symbolic rather than historical, I see no reason why it could not be both.  I.e., that it was a literal event with a symbolic meaning.

(b) A purely supernatural phenomenon?

This is the opinion of Poole, Hendriksen, Ryken and others.

It seems clear that Matthew Mark and Luke want us to think of it as more than natural, or, at least, of having special significance.  See Ex 10:22; Amos 8:9.

If it were a ‘pure’ miracle, then this places it beyond the reach of logical or evidential analysis.

Such a phenomena might well be described as an ‘eclipse’ by those who witnessed or recorded it, even though there are sound reasons for believing that it was not a solar eclipse in the accepted sense (see following).

(c) A ‘natural’ terrestrial phenomenon such as a dust cloud, or thick cloud cover?

This is possible, but cannot be either proved or disproved.  But the description of the darkness covering ‘the whole land/earth’ counts against such theories.

More than one interpreter suggests that along with the earthquake, this phenomenon was a natural event with a supernatural timing.

James Orr:

‘The darkness was preternatural in its time and occasion, whatever natural agencies may have been concerned in it.’ (ISBE, 1st. ed.)

(d) An eclipse?

Some of the earliest and best mss of Luke’s account read: tou hēliou eklipontos/ ekleipontos = ‘While the sun eclipsed’ (others merely say, ‘the sun was darkened’).  But although ekleipo can refer to an eclipse, it need not necessarily do so.  But the very fact that it can may have led later scribes to modify the text, and thus clarify that the normally meticulous Luke had not made a blunder.

In recent years, the internet has been buzzing with claims that the three hours of darkness recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke was observed as a solar eclipse by ancient Chinese astronomers.

As far as I can tell, these claims all derive from one source: Chan Kei Thong’s Faith of Our Fathers (2006).  The author claims that:

‘This event is corroborated in the Chinese historical documents, which record a highly significant solar eclipse occurring around the time indicated in the biblical account.’

The author quotes Chinese historical documents:

“Yin and Yang have mistakenly switched, and the sun and moon were eclipsed. The sins of all the people are now on one man. Pardon is proclaimed to all under heaven.”

“In the day of Gui Hai, the last day of the month, there was a solar eclipse. [The emperor] avoided the Throne Room, suspended all military activities and did not handle official business for five days.”

“Eclipse on the day of Gui Hai, Man from Heaven died”.

The author goes on to say:

‘Gui Hai was the last day of the third month in the spring, during the 7th year of Han Emperor Guang Wu (reigned A.D. 25-57). That corresponds to A.D. 31…So the Chinese experienced the same eclipse and recorded and interpreted it as they would normally do.’

However, a note of uncertainty is introduced:

In comparing the Chinese astronomy records with the biblical accounts, we are not trying to pinpoint the exact date of Jesus’ crucifixion or trying to prove that this particular eclipse observed by the Chinese was definitely the same one recorded in the Bible. There are just too many variables involved in trying to arrive at an exact date by matching Chinese, Gregorian and Hebrew calendars. The more important point that we want to draw attention to is the remarkable interpretations the Chinese astronomers arrived at to explain this astral event. These interpretations are astonishingly consistent with the Bible’s teaching about the birth and death of Jesus Christ.

See also this discussion.

The most obvious objection to the solar eclipse theory is that the Passover was held at full moon (when the moon is at its furthest distance from the Sun as seen from Earth, whereas a solar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly in front of the Sun, as seen from Earth).  A further problem is that Luke tells us that the darkness lasted for three hours, whereas a solar eclipse lasts for not more than about seven minutes.

However, as mentioned already, it is possible that observers might have used the language of ‘eclipse’ to describe this phenomenon.

Conclusion

I have too high a regard for the historical nature of the Gospels to think that these accounts are fictitious (a).  I’m doubtful that a dust storm or some meteorological disturbance satisfies the biblical description (b).  Conversely, a ‘pure’ miracle is entirely possible, but is outside the scope of historical or scientific enquiry (c).  The event cannot have been an ‘ordinary’ solar eclipse (d), because the crucifixion took place around the time of Passover, which occurred at Full Moon (not New Moon).

I am unable, therefore, to reach a verdict on the nature of this event.