"And The Sun Was Darkened"
When a modern scholar cannot explain incidents recorded in the Bible, on the basis of his worldly academic training, he frequently resorts to sophistry, evasion or subterfuge, in an effort to avoid admitting that a miracle occurred or that something transpired above and beyond his own comprehension.
A notable example of such a procedure is found in the translations of Goodspeed and Moffatt of Luke 23:45. First, we give the American Revised Version: "The sun's light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Second, we give the Revised Standard Version: "While the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two." This version adds a footnote which reads: — "Or the sun was eclipsed. Many ancient authorities read 'the sun was darkened.' But, to continue . . . . Moffatt reads: "Darkness covered the whole land till three o'clock, owing to an eclipse of the sun." Goodspeed, renders it: "(darkness) lasted until three in the afternoon, as the sun was in eclipse."
By resorting to the use of the word 'eclipse' these two translators have attempted to remove any supernatural meaning from the "sun's light failing" as Cunnington gives it. Cunnington also gives a footnote which introduces the subject which completely ruins Moffatt's and Goodspeed's use of 'eclipse'; it reads: "Our word 'eclipse' is derived from the Greek word here used; but as an eclipse is IMPOSSIBLE AT FULL MOON, it is best to keep to the ordinary meaning of the word, i.e., cease, fail."
The American Commentary on Luke, written by W. N. Clarke, reads . . . : "The text of the Revision (Revised Version) is clear of ambiguity, and assigns a true cause of the darkness. 'The sun's light' — or, more directly, 'the sun failing.' The terms used are those appropriate in Greek to signify an eclipse; but might be used to mark an effect like that of an eclipse, without asserting that the moon then shut out the light. That, of course, would be an impossibility at the Passover season, when the moon was full."
If the word 'eclipse' in one of its forms is a correct and proper translation in Luke 23:45, then why not use some of the other instances where skotizo is found? Such as: Ephesians 4:18, "Having the understanding darkened." I'm sure the use of 'eclipse' as a verb, when it in no way is connected with celestial bodies is correct and proper. For example .... "To eclipse the glory of a hero" would be a suitable usage of the word. The King James Version does not contain the word 'eclipse' and the Greek words, skotizo, (darken); skotia, (dark and darkness); and skotos, (darkness), are used a total of 56 times. Thus it appears that the modernists have to strain out the gnat and almost swallow the camel in order to in any way use the word 'eclipse,' in Luke 23:45.
When the Apostle Paul stood before King Agrippa, as recorded in Acts 26:17-18, he proclaimed , "Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I now send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God ...." In this statement, Paul indicates that he was to take the light of the gospel of Christ, to those persons in spiritual darkness. In that sense, it could be said that the things of this world had seemed more brilliant than the truths of God, and in a sense the Truth of God was eclipsed. And, I take no issue with such a usage. I do however, sharply oppose the erroneous expression 'eclipse of the sun' at the death of Christ.
The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, in dealing with the subject of the 'darkness' at the crucifixion of Christ, states: "That the darkness could not have proceded from an eclipse of the sun is placed beyond all doubt by the fact that, it being then the time of the Passover, the moon was at the full." (Page 498, Vol. I.)
Schaff's Bible Dictionary states: ".... The darkness that shrouded the earth when our Saviour was put to death, Luke 23:44-45; it was manifestly miraculous, as no natural eclipse of the sun could take place at that period of the moon." (Page 220.)
Barnes' Dictionary of the Bible, and Smith's Bible Dictionary, offer almost exactly the same information as given above. Both deny the possibility of a solar eclipse at the time of the Passover.
So, we conclude by again reminding the reader, that nearly all modernists provide some clue, hint, or 'straw in the wind' which will usually betray their lack of fidelity to the facts of the Bible. Whenever a preacher or teacher gets to the point that he begins to 'Hem and Haw' and attempts to pass off the supernatural things of the Bible, by some allegedly 'natural' explanation, it is high time to determine for ourselves, whether they even believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Sometimes our modern brethren even degenerate to the level of the Jews who rejected Christ as God's Son.