User talk:Hmschallenger

Crucifixion of Jesus
Hi,

You made an edit about the lunar eclipse in the Crucifixion of Jesus that I thought was interesting and someone reverted it because they said it was original research per WP:OR. My guess is that the last part where you mentioned the computer simulation was original (and Wikipedia does not like original work) but the Nature reference etc. was interesting. I would like to include that material if it can be supported by references.I found the summary of the Nature article and all it said was:


 * "The date of the Crucifixion has been debated for many years, but there has been no agreement on the year nor the day. Astronomical calculations have now been used to reconstruct the Jewish calendar in the first century AD and to date a lunar eclipse that biblical and other references suggest followed the Crucifixion. The evidence points to Friday 3 April AD 33 as the date when Jesus Christ died."

That reference and fact can be added to the section about the date and place of Crucifixion, and I can do that later. But it seems not say much about the eclipse. Does the full version say it? Has the Starry Night simulation been published anywhere? Are there other references online? If you did that simulation yourself, have you submitted it for publication anywhere? It would be very interesting.

By the way, I had, previously added the fact below that from ''Pratt, J. P. (1991). "Newton's Date for the Crucifixion". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 32 (3): 301–304''" that he estimated it as April 3rd 33AD as well. So this confirms that.

The heart of your contribution was valuable I think, and I would like to restore it, but I need more info before I claim that the references support it. You could reply just below here on this page, and I will see it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply from HMS Challenger: The "Starry Night" software is a commercial product. See the review at http://lowendmac.com/lab/01/0830.html. Citing the review: This software "has all but eliminated the low-end competition for planetarium software for the Macintosh. It is even a serious competitor for the position held by Software Bisque's TheSky program." Therefore the verification of a lunar eclipse still visible at sundown in Jerusalem on 3 April 33 can be verified by anyone using that software. It is not what I would call original research.

As to the Nature Article -- My own source of information is the expanded version published a year later in the JASA article referenced in my contribution. I believe that this version essentially duplicates the content of the Nature article and adds a lot of additional information. The key observation noted in both articles is that Peter's reference to the "Moon turned to blood" (Acts 2:20) is a common reference to a lunar eclipse. And the fact that indeed there was such an eclipse on the Passover Preparation Day, Friday 3 April 33 AD (as verified by the Starry Night program) would seem to be a powerful witness to the correct interpretation of Peter's remark as meaning a lunar eclipse.

Regards, Dr. David C. Bossard Hmschallenger (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The Humphreys Article in JASA is located on the web at: http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1985/JASA3-85Humphreys.html. Hmschallenger (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS. Quoting the Humphreys Article: "The Lunar Eclipse on Friday, 3 April A.D.33. Calculations show that this eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise. All times quoted below are local Jerusalem times as measured by a sundial. The start of the eclipse was invisible from Jerusalem, being below the horizon. The eclipse began at 3:40pm and reached a maximum at 5:15pm, with 60% of the moon eclipsed. This was also below the horizon from Jerusalem. The moon rose above the horizon, and was first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow and the remainder in the penumbra. The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm."

David C. Bossard HMSChallenger Hmschallenger (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I read the article. That is indeed an interesting fact and a valid reference. And the author are not amatures but Oxford scientists. I will add it. Cheers History2007 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sentence (citing Humphreys) that cites Peter's mention of an eclipse in Acts 2:20.

MORE TO THE POINT: I think that the article on "Crucifixion Eclipse" is confusing and probably not well organized. The solar eclipse option is immediately dismissed (which is proper -- after all Passover occurs at a full moon, which CANNOT be the time of a solar eclipse) but the "eclipse" is still associated with the period of darkness, which is also impossible (the association, that is). I am going to move there and try to make some comments, but the problem is probably larger than I can tackle alone. 96.245.212.115 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the eclipse article needs improvement. But you forgot to login and your edits look anonymous. It is best to login, then edit. I will try to help. Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, we may have a potential edit war situation, which can be unfortunate. Another user is deleting text about the lunar eclipse and if you revert him remember the KEY thing: You can make 3 reverts in any 24 hour period. But the 4th revert can result in a block. So never revert more than 3 times on an article in any 24 hour period. But in that time frame, please feel free to restore text. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion eclipse
Hi, on the page Crucifixion eclipse there is a statement that the Gospel of Mark is "artificial" and there is a reference to that effect. Do you have any info to the contrary? Please see the talk page therein. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)