Skip to main content
Christanity

Luke 23:45 Eclipse or Darkness — How Scribes Changed the Original Greek Word to Hide an Astronomical Problem

11 min read 2385 words

title: “The Distortion of Luke 23:45 — Eclipse or Darkness?” description: “A textual-critical examination of the manuscript dispute over Luke 23:45, demonstrating that the original Greek word meaning ‘eclipsed’ was altered by later scribes to the vaguer term ‘darkened’ to avoid the astronomical impossibility of a solar eclipse during a full moon.” category: Christianity tags:

  • bible
  • textual-criticism
  • manuscript
  • tahrif
How to Navigate This Note The Verse Under Study — The disputed text The Distortion Defined — What was changed and why Manuscript Evidence — Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Papyrus 75 The Greek Lexicon on ἐκλείπω — What the word actually means Daniel Wallace Confirms the Distortion — A textual critic’s admission Patristic Evidence — Tertullian and Origen — Church fathers who read the eclipse Why the Distortion Was Made — The astronomical problem scribes tried to hide Commentary Consensus — Ellicott, Benson, Meyer, Adam Clarke Conclusion — The verdict

The Verse Under Study

Luke 23:45 — Standard (distorted) reading “And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”

The original text of Luke 23:45 does not say “was darkened” — it says “was eclipsed.” This specific word was altered by later copyists to conceal an astronomical impossibility they themselves recognised: a total solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon, and the Passover — the time of the crucifixion — always falls on a full moon.

The Distortion Defined

The distortion is a single-word substitution:

  • Original reading (oldest manuscripts): τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος — the sun having been eclipsed
  • Later reading (majority manuscripts): ἐσκοτίσθη — the sun was darkened

The word ἐκλείπωGreek: ἐκλείπω (ekleipō) — the root of the English word “eclipse.” Used in classical and Hellenistic Greek specifically to denote the failure or eclipse of the sun or moon. is unambiguous in its primary astronomical meaning. Later scribes, understanding the problem this word created — namely, that a solar eclipse is physically impossible during Passover — substituted the vaguer ἐσκοτίσθη, which simply means “became dark” without any specific cause implied.

This substitution is not a matter of translation preference. It is a documented change from the oldest and best manuscripts to a later and inferior reading, made specifically to avoid an embarrassing astronomical problem. This is by the hands of copyists themselves.

Manuscript Evidence

The reading ἐκλιπόντος / ἐκλείποντος (“the sun having been eclipsed”) is found in the earliest and best witnesses:

  • Papyrus 75 (𝔓75) — from the late 2nd or early 3rd century
  • Codex Sinaiticus (א) — 4th century
  • Codex Vaticanus (B) — 4th century
  • Codex Ephraemi (C)* — 5th century (original hand)
  • Codex Regius (L) — 8th century
  • Manuscript 0124
  • Several ancient versions

The three oldest and most important Greek manuscripts all read “eclipse” — not “darkened.”

We read the text directly from the Sinaiticus manuscript:

νατηϲ του ηλιου εκλιποντοϲ εϲχιϲθη δε το κα ταπεταϲμα του

The word εκλιποντοϲ is unmistakably ἐκλείπω in its participial form — “having failed/been eclipsed.”

The later reading ἐσκοτίσθη (“was darkened”) appears in:

  • Manuscripts A, C3, D, K, W, Θ, Ψ, 0117, 0135
  • Family 1 and Family 13 manuscripts
  • The Byzantine majority text
  • Latin manuscripts

These are later witnesses. Their reading is secondary.

The Greek Lexicon on ἐκλείπω

The meaning of the word is confirmed by Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (STRONGS NT 1587):

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon — STRONGS NT 1587 (ἐκλείπω) “ἐκλείπω; future ἐκλείψω; 2 aorist ἐξέλιπον;
  1. transitive, a. to leave out, omit, pass by. b. to leave, quit (a place)…
  2. intransitive, to fail; i.e. to leave off, cease, stop… As often in classic Greek from Thucydides down, it is used of the failure or eclipse of the light of the sun and the moon: τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος (WH ἐκλειποντος), the sun having failed (or failing), Luke 23:45 Tdf.; on this (without doubt the truth) reading (see especially WHs Appendix, at the passage)…”

Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/1587.htm

Thayer explicitly identifies this reading — τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος — as “without doubt the truth” and confirms the word is used in classical Greek specifically for the eclipse or failure of sunlight. The Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon similarly classifies ἐκλείπω as the standard term for a solar eclipse in Greek literature.

Daniel Wallace Confirms the Distortion

Daniel Wallace, one of the foremost textual critics of the New Testament, wrote an article titled Errors in the Greek Text Behind Modern Translations? The Cases of Matthew 1:7, 10 and Luke 23:45 in which he explicitly confirms:

  1. The oldest and best witnesses read the eclipse word.
  2. The “darkened” reading is a later scribal substitution.
  3. The substitution was motivated by the desire to avoid the eclipse problem.
Daniel Wallace — Errors in the Greek Text Behind Modern Translations? The Cases of Matthew 1:7, 10 and Luke 23:45 (bible.org) “The wording ‘the sun’s light failed’ is a translation of τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος/ἐκλείποντος (tou heliou eklipontos/ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them 𝔓75 א B C* L 0124 as well as several ancient versions). The majority of manuscripts (A C3 D K W Θ Ψ 0117 0135 f1 f13 Byz lat) have the flatter term, ‘the sun was darkened’ (ἐσκοτίσθη/eskotisthe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse. This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be understood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.”

Wallace continues:

Daniel Wallace — continued “Some students of the NT see in Luke’s statement ‘the sun’s light failed’ (eklipontos) an obvious blunder in his otherwise meticulous historical accuracy. The reason for claiming such an error on the evangelist’s part is due to an understanding of the verb as indicating a solar eclipse when such would be an astronomical impossibility during a full moon. There are generally two ways to resolve this difficulty: (a) adopt a different reading (‘the sun was darkened’) that smooths over the problem, or (b) understand the verb eklipontos in a general way (such as ‘the sun’s light failed’) rather than as a technical term, ‘the sun was eclipsed.’ The problem with the first solution is that it is too convenient, for the Christian scribes who, over the centuries, copied Luke’s gospel would have thought the same thing. That is, they too would have sensed a problem in the wording and felt that some earlier scribe had incorrectly written down what Luke penned. The fact that the reading ‘was darkened’ shows up in the later and generally inferior witnesses does not bolster one’s confidence that this is the right solution.”

And finally:

Daniel Wallace — conclusion on the scribal motive “Thus, the very fact that the verb can refer to an eclipse would be a sufficient basis for later scribes altering the text out of pious motives; conversely, the very fact that the verb does not always refer to an eclipse and, in fact, does not normally do so, is enough of a basis to exonerate Luke of wholly uncharacteristic sloth.”

Source: https://bible.org/article/errors-greek-text-behind-modern-translations-cases-matthew-17-10-and-luke-2345

Wallace, despite attempting to defend the overall text, openly admits: the “darkened” reading is later, inferior, inauthentic, and was produced by scribes motivated by a desire to smooth over a perceived problem. This is a textual critic conceding tahrif in his own words.

Patristic Evidence — Tertullian and Origen

The original eclipse reading is also confirmed by two of the most important early Church fathers: Tertullian and Origen. Both wrote before the majority of manuscripts that contain the “darkened” substitution were produced, and both quote or refer to the event using eclipse language.

Origen — Against Celsus, Book II, Chapter 33

Origen — Against Celsus, Book II, Chapter 33 “…darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light… And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, 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.”

Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.ii.xxxiii.html

Origen explicitly calls it an eclipse — ἔκλειψις — and references Phlegon, a Greek astronomer and freedman of Emperor Hadrian, who recorded in his Chronicles what appears to be the same event. Origen’s use of the eclipse terminology confirms that the original text he read used ἐκλείπω, not ἐσκοτίσθη.

Tertullian — Apology, Chapter 21

Tertullian — Apology (Apologeticus), Chapter 21 “In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it was an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.”

Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/apology.v.iii.xxi.html

Tertullian writing in the late 2nd / early 3rd century explicitly uses eclipse language and states that Roman records of the event still existed in his time. His phrasing — “those who did not know it was predicted thought it was an eclipse” — confirms that the word in the text he read was the eclipse word, otherwise the distinction would be meaningless.

The Benson Commentary records this patristic evidence:

Benson Commentary — on Matthew 27:45 “Tertullian (Apol., cap. 21.) says that this prodigious darkening of the sun was recorded in the Roman archives; for, says he, ‘at the same moment, about noontide, the day was withdrawn; and they, who knew not that this was foretold concerning Christ, thought it was an eclipse.’ …Christian writers, in their most ancient apologies to the heathen, while they affirm that, as it was full moon at the passover, when Christ was crucified, no such eclipse could happen by the course of nature; they observe, also, that it was taken notice of as a prodigy by the heathen themselves. To this purpose, we have still remaining the words of Phlegon, the astronomer and freedman of Adrian, cited by Origen… That heathen author, in treating of the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad, which is supposed to be the year in which our Lord was crucified, tells us, ‘That the greatest eclipse of the sun which was ever known happened then; for the day was so turned into night, that the stars in the heavens were seen.’”

Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/27-45.htm

Why the Distortion Was Made

The motive for the scribal substitution is documented clearly: a solar eclipse is astronomically impossible during a full moon, and the Passover — the Jewish festival during which the crucifixion took place — always falls on the 14th of Nisan, which is always a full moon.

The commentators themselves acknowledge this openly.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers — on Matthew 27:45 “The moon was at its full, and therefore there could be no eclipse. St. John does not name it, nor is it recorded by Josephus, Tacitus, or any contemporary writer. On the other hand, its appearance in records in many respects so independent of each other as those of the three Gospels places it, even as the common grounds of historical probability, on a sufficiently firm basis, and early Christian writers, such as Tertullian (Apol. c. 21) and Origen (Contra Cels. ii. 33), appeal to it as attested by heathen writers.”

Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/27-45.htm

Adam Clarke — Commentary on Matthew 27 “It is plain enough there was a darkness in Jerusalem, and over all Judea… and that this darkness was supernatural is evident from this, that it happened during the passover, which was celebrated only at the full moon, a time in which it was impossible for the sun to be eclipsed.”

Source: https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/mat027.htm

Meyer’s NT Commentary — on Matthew 27:45 “An ordinary eclipse of the sun was not possible during full moon (Origen); for which reason the eclipse of the 202d Olympiad, recorded by Phlegon in Syncellus, Chronogr. I. p. 614, ed. Bonn, and already referred to by Eusebius, is equally out of the question.”

Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/27-45.htm

The scribal logic is therefore transparent: the original text said “eclipse.” Copyists recognised that a solar eclipse cannot occur during Passover. Rather than leave what they perceived as a scientific error in the text, they changed ἐκλείπω to ἐσκοτίσθη — “was darkened” — a vaguer term that removes the eclipse implication. This is the exact pattern Daniel Wallace described: scribes “altering the text out of pious motives.”

Commentary Consensus

Grotius — cited in Benson Commentary on Matthew 27:45 “The sun being darkened, as Luke informs us, not by the interposition of the moon, which was then full, nor by a cloud spread over the face of the sky, but in some way unknown to mankind.”

The Benson Commentary also records the testimony of Phlegon — a pagan Greek astronomer — who wrote of the same event in his Chronicles of the 202nd Olympiad:

Phlegon of Tralles, Greek astronomer and freedman of Emperor Hadrian (2nd century CE), recorded in his Chronicles (cited by Origen, Eusebius, and others): “That the greatest eclipse of the sun which was ever known happened then; for the day was so turned into night, that the stars in the heavens were seen.”

This pagan record, cited by multiple Christian apologists, uses eclipse terminology — consistent with the original ἐκλείπω reading in Luke 23:45, and inconsistent with the later ἐσκοτίσθη substitution.

Conclusion

The evidence converges on one conclusion: the original text of Luke 23:45 read τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος — “the sun having been eclipsed.” This is the reading of Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and the best witnesses. It is confirmed by Tertullian and Origen in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, before the majority manuscripts were produced. It is confirmed by Thayer’s Greek Lexicon as the authentic reading. And it is confirmed by the textual critic Daniel Wallace, who acknowledges that the “darkened” reading is later, inferior, and was produced by scribes motivated by the desire to smooth over an astronomical problem.

The distortion was motivated, documented, and traceable to the manuscript tradition itself. Later copyists changed a specific word to a vaguer one — not because the original was unclear, but because it was too clear. This is tahrif not as a theological claim, but as a conclusion directly supported by Christian textual scholars.

سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي لَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ شَرِيكٌ فِي الْمُلْكِ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلِيٌّ مِّنَ الذُّلِّ وَكَبِّرْهُ تَكْبِيرًا

وَآخِرُ دَعْوَانَا أَنِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

2025 https://www.openislam.wiki/og/luke-23-45-eclipse-or-darkness-how-scribes-changed-the-original-greek-word-to-hide-an-astronomical-problem.png