ARE ECLIPSES ALLUDED TO IN THE BIBLE?

An interesting question has been suggested: Are there any allusions to eclipses to be found in Holy Scripture? It seems safe to assert that there is at least one, and that there may be three or four.

In Amos viii. 9 we read:—“I will cause the Sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the Earth in the clear day.” This language is so very explicit and applies so precisely to the circumstances of a solar eclipse that commentators are generally agreed that it can have but one meaning;[23] and accordingly it is considered to refer without doubt to one or other of the following eclipses:—791 B.C., 771 B.C., 770 B.C., or 763 B.C. Archbishop Usher,[24] the well-known chronologist, suggested the first three more than two centuries ago, whilst the eclipse of 763 B.C. was suggested in recent times and is now generally accepted as the one referred to. The circumstances connected with the discovery and identification of the eclipse of 763 B.C. are very interesting.

The date when Amos wrote is set down in the margin of our Bibles as 787 B.C. and if this date is correct it follows that for his statement to have been a prediction he must be alluding to some eclipse of later date than 787 B.C. This obvious assumption not only shuts out the eclipse of 791 B.C., but opens the door to the acceptance of the eclipse of 763 B.C.

Apparently the first modern writer who looked into the matter after Archbishop Usher was the German commentator Hitzig who suggested the eclipse of Feb. 9, 784 B.C. Dr. Pusey was so far taken with this idea that he thought it worth while to secure the co-operation of the Rev. R. Main, F.R.A.S., the Radcliffe Observer at Oxford, for the purpose of a full investigation. Mr. Main had the circumstances of that eclipse calculated, with the result that though the eclipse was indeed total in Africa and Hindostan, yet at Samaria it was only partial and of no considerable magnitude. Dr. Pusey’s words, summing up the situation are:—“The eclipse then would hardly have been noticeable at Samaria, certainly very far indeed from being an eclipse of such magnitude, as could in any degree correspond with the expression, ‘I will cause the Sun to go down at noon.’” ... “Beforehand, one should not have expected that an eclipse of the Sun, being itself a regular natural phenomenon, and having no connection with the moral government of God, should have been the subject of the prophet’s prediction. Still it had a religious impressiveness then, above what it has now, on account of that wide-prevailing idolatry of the Sun. It exhibited the object of their false worship, shorn of its light, and passive.”

Dr. Pusey’s Commentary from which the above quotation is made[25] bears the date 1873, but he appears not to have been acquainted with the important discovery announced no less than six years previously by the distinguished Oriental scholar, Sir H.C. Rawlinson. The discovery to which I allude is a contemporary record on an Assyrian tablet of a solar eclipse which was seen at Nineveh about 24 years after the reputed date of Amos’s prophecy. This tablet had been described by Dr. Hinckes in the British Museum Report for 1854 but its chronological importance had not then been realised. Sir H. Rawlinson[26] speaks of the tablet as a record of or register of the annual archons at Nineveh. He says:—“In the eighteenth year before the accession of Tiglath-Pileser there is a notice to the following effect—‘In the month Sivan an eclipse of the Sun took place’ and to mark the great importance of the event a line is drawn across the tablet although no interruption takes place in the official order of the Eponymes. Here then we have notice of a solar eclipse which was visible at Nineveh which occurred within 90 days of the (vernal) equinox (taking that as the normal commencement of the year) and which we may presume to have been total from the prominence given to the record, and these are conditions which during a century before and after the era of Nabonassar are alone fulfilled by the eclipse which took place on June 15, 763.”

This record was submitted to Sir G.B. Airy and Mr. J.R. Hind, and the circumstances of the eclipse were computed by the latter, by the aid of Hansen’s Lunar Tables and Le Verrier’s Solar Tables. The result, when plotted on a map, showed that the shadow line just missed the site of Nineveh, but that a very slight and unimportant deviation from the result of the Tables would bring the shadow over the city of Nineveh where the eclipse was observed, and over Samaria where it was predicted. The identification of this eclipse, both as regards its time and place, has also proved a matter of importance in the revision of Scripture chronology, by lowering, to the extent of 25 years, the reigns of the kings of the Jewish monarchy. The need for this revision is further confirmed, if we assume that the celebrated incident in the life of King Hezekiah, described as the retrogradation of the Sun’s shadow on the dial of Ahaz, is to be interpreted as connected with a partial eclipse of the Sun.

We will now consider this event, and see what can be made out of it. One Scripture record (2 Kings xx. 11) is as follows:—“And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.” This passage has greatly exercised commentators of all creeds in different ages of the Church; and the most divergent opinions have been expressed as to what happened. This has been due to two causes jointly. Not only is the occurrence incomprehensible, looked at on the surface of the words, but we are entirely ignorant of the construction of the so-called “dial” of Ahaz, and have little or no material directly available from outside sources to enable us to come to a clear and safe conclusion. No doubt, however, it was a sun-dial, or gnomon of some kind. Bishop Wordsworth lays stress on the apparent assertion that the miracle was not wrought on any other dial at Jerusalem except that of Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, and he treats as a confirmation of this the statement in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31, that ambassadors came from Babylon to Jerusalem, being curious to learn all about “the wonder that had been done in the land” (i.e. in the land of Judah). But there is more taken for granted here than is necessary, or, as we shall presently see, is justifiable. To begin with, how do we know that there was any other dial at Jerusalem like that of Ahaz? But, in point of fact, we must make a new departure altogether, for it has been suggested (I know not exactly by whom, or when for the first time) that an eclipse of the Sun, under certain circumstances, would explain all that happened, and reconcile all that has to be reconciled. What happened to Hezekiah is thought by many to imply clearly a miracle, and it may be said that an eclipse of the Sun cannot be held to be a miracle[27] by the ordinary definition of the word. But, on the other hand, it certainly might count as such in the eyes of ignorant spectators, who know nothing of the theory or practice of eclipses, and who would regard such a thing as quite unforeseen, unexpected, and alarming. Illustrations of this might be multiplied from all parts of the world, in all ages of the world’s history.

Let us see now what the argument is, as it was worked out by the late Mr. J.W. Bosanquet, F.R.A.S. Shortly before the invasion of JudÆa by Sennacherib—say in the beginning of the year 689 B.C.—Hezekiah was sick unto death. In answer to his fervent prayer for recovery the prophet Isaiah was sent to him with this message:—“Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy Father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years ... and I will defend this city, and this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that He hath spoken. Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz ten degrees backward. So the Sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it had gone down.” (Isaiah xxxviii. 5-8).

In these words we evidently have mention of some instrument erected in Hezekiah’s palace, in the days of his father Ahaz, for showing the change in the position of the shadow cast by the Sun from day to day. This statement is confirmed by a profane writer, Glycas, who states: “They say that Ahaz, by some contrivance, had erected in his palace certain steps, which showed the hours of the day, and also measured the course of the Sun.”

The idea involved in “bringing again,” through “ten degrees backward,” “the shadow of the degrees” which had gone down, is very noteworthy. We seem intended to learn from these words several things. For one thing (to begin with) that the steps (as we must consider them to have been) on this sun-dial of Ahaz, were turned away from the Sun. For only in that position could they cast their shadow, or could the number of the illuminated steps be varied, upwards or downwards, according to the varying altitude of the sun. The only conceivable use of a fixed instrument so placed would be to show the rise and fall of the shadow from day to day, as the Sun on the meridian gradually rose higher between mid-winter and mid-summer, or descended lower between mid-summer and mid-winter, in passing of course through the winter and summer solstices in turn. No simple motion of the Sun in its ordinary diurnal progress would produce the effect described. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the shadow cast by a gnomon properly adjusted at the head of such a series of steps would travel upwards and downwards upon the steps “with the Sun,” from winter to summer and from summer to winter, indicating at each noon the meridian altitude of the Sun from day to day, the latitude of Jerusalem being 31°47', and the Sun’s altitude there on the shortest day being 34°41'. If the gnomon were raised above the topmost step so as to bring the tip of the gnomon or any aperture in it so much above the step as would be the equivalent of 2°54' or slightly more, then the top of the shadow of the gnomon (or a spot of light passing through a hole in it) would, on the shortest day of the year, fall just beyond the lowermost step. An instrument constructed on the principle just set forth was known to and used by the Greek astronomers of antiquity under the name of a Sciotheron or shadow-taker. Sometimes, and perhaps more properly, it was called a Heliotropion, that is, an instrument designed to indicate the turning of the Sun at the Tropics.[28] This, be it remembered, was information needed by the ancients for the correct regulation of the seasons of the year, and of special service to the Jews whose greater festivals were fixed in connection with the seasons. There is reason to believe that instruments of this character were of early invention, going back perhaps to the times of Homer, for we find a passage in the Odyssey, (xv. 403) as follows:—

Pope’s rendering of this passage fails, however, to bring out the salient idea involved. Butcher and Lang translate the passage thus:—“There is a certain isle called Syria, if haply thou hast heard tell of it, over above Ortygia, and there are the turning-places of the Sun.” Merry[29] calls these island names mere “inventions of the poet.” It seems to me a great question whether Homer’s words really support the statement I have made just before quoting it.

Diogenes LaËrtius refers to this same instrument when he speaks of the Heliotropion preserved in the Island of Syra.[30]

According to LaËrtius, Anaximander[31] was the first Greek to use gnomons, which he placed on the Sciothera of LacedÆmon, for the express purpose of indicating the Tropics and Equinoxes. These Sciothera were pyramidal in form.

An obelisk was the simplest, though an imperfect form of Heliotropion, marking indistinctly the length of a shadow at different times of the year, especially the extremes of length and shortness at mid-winter and mid-summer. It is perhaps interesting to mention that travellers have recorded, in various places, various devices for furnishing information respecting these matters. For instance, in Milan Cathedral the meridian line is marked on the pavement, and along this line, an image of the Sun coming through an aperture in the southern wall travels backwards and forwards during the year according to the seasons. Some Jesuit missionaries who visited China about the middle of the last century, noticed a device of this character in operation at the Observatory at Pekin. A gnomon had been set up in a low room and one of the missionaries, M. Le Comte, describes in the following words what they saw in connection with this gnomon:—“The aperture through which the rays of the Sun came was about 8 ft. above the floor; it is horizontal and formed of two pieces of copper, which may be turned so as to be farther from, or closer to, each other to enlarge or contract the aperture. Lower was a table with a brass plate in the middle on which was traced a meridian line 15 ft. long, divided by transverse lines which are neither finished nor exact. All round the table there are small channels to receive the water, whereby it is to be levelled.”[32]

All this may seem rather a digression, and so it is, but I am following Mr. Bosanquet herein in order the better to justify the argument that it was an eclipse of the Sun which marked the important incident in Hezekiah’s life which has been handed down to us by the sacred writer. It is evident that if a flight of steps were erected on the principles which were set forth above, the steps sloping upwards and southwards (for the Northern Hemisphere) from the lowest step to within a few inches below an aperture in the gnomon suitably arranged, the ray or image of the Sun, whichever it was, would travel day by day up and down such steps between solstice and solstice. We may conclude, therefore, that the instrument which Hezekiah gazed at, and which is called in Scripture, the “Dial” of Ahaz, was what the Greeks would have termed a Heliotropion.

The historian’s record is to the effect that on the day of Hezekiah’s recovery an extraordinary motion of the shadow was observed on the “Steps of Ahaz” by the rising of the shadow “ten steps” from the point to which it had “gone down with the Sun.” This effect is spoken of not as a miracle but as “a sign.” It should also be remembered that the cure of Hezekiah was effected not by a miracle but by a simple application of a lump of figs. The promise of his recovery was confirmed by the motion of the shadow as already stated. We are justified, therefore, in looking for some ordinary natural phenomenon by which to account for this peculiar motion on the dial, and something miraculous is not essential. Dean Milman once suggested that the effect might have been produced “by a cloud refracting the light.” No doubt a dark cloud might produce an apparent interference with the shadow, but it is well pointed out by Bosanquet that such a cause as a cloud would have been so manifest to everyone, and the effect so transient, that the phenomenon could hardly have been referred to afterwards as it was in another place as “a wonder that was done in the land.” (2 Chron. xxxii. 31).

It becomes, therefore, alike an obvious and a simple explanation that a shadow caused by the Sun might be deflected downwards on such an instrument with a regular and steady motion by the Moon passing slowly over the upper part of the Sun’s disc, as Sun and Moon both approached the meridian.

The critical question has now to be raised: “Can astronomers inform us whether a considerable eclipse of the Sun occurred at the beginning of the year 689 B.C. anywhere near noon and which was visible at Jerusalem?” And the answer to this it is interesting to be able to say is a plain and distinct affirmative. There was a large partial eclipse of the Sun on January 11, 689 B.C., about 11.30 A.M., and it was the upper limb which underwent eclipse.

This eclipse fulfils all the requirements of the case, both from the historian’s and the astronomer’s point of view. It occurred about the year fixed by Demetrius as that of Hezekiah’s illness: it occurred while the Sun was approaching and actually passing the meridian; the obscuration was on that part of the Sun’s disc (namely the upper part) which would have had the effect of causing the point of light, which would seem to emanate from the Sun, to appear to be depressed downwards; and it was visible at Jerusalem. But there still remains for consideration the final and most important question, “Would a deflection of light proceeding from the Sun, regarded as a moving body, be capable of affecting, to the extent of ‘ten steps,’ the shadow on such an instrument as has been described?” And arising out of this, there is the subordinate question, “Would January, being the month when this eclipse certainly occurred, also be a month suitable for the exhibition of such a phenomenon?”

It is ascertainable by calculation that the time occupied by the Moon in passing over the Sun, in the way it did during this eclipse, was about 2½ hours. But from the time of central conjunction, when the obscuration was the greatest and the point of light depressed the most, to the time when the uppermost portion of the Sun’s disc was released by the eastward motion of the Moon, and the light from that uppermost portion was again manifest, was about 20 minutes, and this, therefore, was the time during which the phenomenon of retrogression on the “steps” would have been exhibited to the King’s eyes. Assuming then that the time when the ascending shadow had travelled upwards to the tenth step coincided, or nearly so, with the time when the Sun had reached its highest altitude for the day, at noon, we infer that the time of central conjunction during this eclipse was not later than from 20 to 15 minutes before noon. It could not have been much earlier, because the phenomenon of the resting of the shadow for a time at its apparently highest point for the day (which preceded the promise that it should rise ten steps) has also to be accounted for, and this cessation of its motion upwards could not have taken place till about 25 minutes before noon, when the decreasing motion of the Sun in altitude (or its slackening motion upwards as it approached mid-day) would have become counteracted by the coming on of the eclipse. Now at 11.35 A.M. the sun’s disc would have risen to the altitude of 35°8'; and the highest visible point of light would, owing to the eclipse, then have been about 35°4'; and at 11.40 A.M., being the time of greatest obscuration, the extreme cusps of light produced by the intervention of the Moon would still have stood at about 35°4', just 23' below the highest point of light at noon (Fig. 12). The whole disc of the sun had now risen above the gnomon, yet no motion of the shadow on the steps had been observed for fully five minutes. The time shown by the dial was seemingly mid-day.