![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/03\/DustStormIsrael.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nRichard Carrier <\/b>(born in 1969), a former Protestant atheist, is, according to Wikipedia<\/a>, \u201can American historian,<\/sup> author, and activist, whose work focuses on empiricism, atheism, and the historicity of Jesus [he\u2019s a \u201cmythicist\u201d]. A long-time contributor to self-published skeptical web sites, including The Secular Web<\/em>\u00a0and Freethought Blogs, Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in\u00a0classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a\u00a0skeptical\u00a0viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the\u00a0historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. . . . In 2008, Carrier received a\u00a0doctorate\u00a0in ancient history from\u00a0Columbia University, where he studied the history of science in antiquity.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019m responding to Carrier\u2019s article, \u201cCatholic Apologist Eats Own Foot: Film at Eleven\u201d<\/a> (10-31-18). His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n Carrier makes a big deal about Catholic writer Mark Shea \u2014 whom he was critiquing here \u2014 being supposedly \u201ca biblical literalist, which makes him essentially indistinguishable from a fundamentalist.\u201d<\/span> This is a patently absurd claim, seeing that so-called \u201cconfused nutter\u201d<\/span> Mark wrote a book called Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did<\/em><\/a> (2008), which provided the historic Catholic approach to hermeneutics, and is the utter opposite of a strictly \u201cliteral\u201d methodology. According to one of its blurbs<\/a>, it \u201cinvites us to explore the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical senses of Scripture.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n I have the book in my library (a signed copy). He devotes 21 pages to the literal sense (which does, of course apply in many cases), but a combined 65 to the other three ways to interpret. This shows how much falsehood lies in Carrier\u2019s cynical description of Mark as \u201ca biblical literalist.\u201d<\/span> He has no idea what he is talking about. Carrier (who seems to be quite the hostile and colorful polemicist) also characterizes Scott Hahn as a \u201cCatholic fundamentalist . . . and wackadoo biblical literalist.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I bring these particular aspects of his article out because \u2014 quite ironically and humorously \u2014 it\u2019s Carrier himself<\/em> who falls into the exact same error and mindset that he falsely excoriates Shea and Hahn for: extreme biblical literalism or a fundamentalist method of biblical interpretation, with regard to the topic I have chosen to examine. He wrote:<\/p>\n We can look to an even more obvious lie, Mark\u2019s invention (and Luke\u2019s repetition) of a darkness covering the whole earth\u2014which Luke even specifies as a solar eclipse, despite that being astronomically impossible\u2014and yet not attested for the time and region in question in any sources, not even extensive astronomical records referenced and cited at the time (see<\/span>\u00a0Proving History<\/em><\/a>, pp. 41-45 & 54-60; and my peer reviewed article on Thallus reproduced in\u00a0<\/span>Hitler Homer Bible Christ<\/em><\/a>). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Luke exaggerates nearly everything in his texts . . .<\/span> [including] a darkness becoming an actual solar eclipse when the moon is on the wrong side of the earth; and so on.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n First, let\u2019s look at the biblical texts that Carrier refers to:<\/p>\n Matthew 27:45<\/strong> (RSV) Now from the sixth hour there was darkness<\/span> over all the land<\/span> until the ninth hour.<\/p>\n Mark 15:33<\/strong> And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness<\/span> over the whole land<\/span> until the ninth hour.<\/p>\n Luke 23:44-45<\/strong> It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness<\/span> over the whole land<\/span> until the ninth hour,\u00a0[45] while the sun\u2019s light failed<\/span>; . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Two questions arise:<\/p>\n 1) Are they intending to say that this darkness covered the entire earth<\/em>?<\/p>\n 2) Are these passages necessarily referring to an eclipse<\/em>?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Carrier (applying the very thing he decries: extreme literalism, in the first instance) blithely assumes both things<\/em>, but they are not at all certain. If I said (sitting in my house in Michigan), \u201cYesterday at noon there was darkness over the whole land\u201d would a person reading that assume I meant the entire earth? Or would they think that I meant all the land surrounding where I live (i.e., as far as I could see)? Almost certainly they would assume the latter.<\/p>\n The Bible is no different. The notion that the entire earth was intended is not in<\/em> the texts, which express things phenomenologically<\/em>, as the Bible writers almost always do. Bible translations make it obvious that a local darkness was the authors\u2019 intention. Out of 61 Bible translations I found for Mark 15:33<\/a>, exactly four, or 7% (none of them among the most well-known translations) translated \u201cthe whole earth\u201d (2) or \u201call the earth\u201d (2). Almost all the others used \u201cland\u201d, with a few rendering it \u201ccountry\u201d or \u201ccountryside.\u201d I\u2019m sure it would be similar for Matthew and Luke. If someone wants to find out, they can follow the link and type in those verses.<\/p>\n The King James Version does<\/em> have \u201call the earth\u201d at Luke 23:44, and 12 out of 61 translations<\/a> (20%) have \u201cearth\u201d there. This is likely where Carrier got his notion. But as we can see, it is still a minority opinion among English Bible translators (16 out of 122 times, or 13% of the time). The word for \u201cland\u201d in all three Gospels is the same: g\u00e9<\/em> (Strong\u2019s Greek word #1093<\/a>). It has a wide latitude of meanings in the Bible: \u201cthe earth, soil, land, region, country, inhabitants of a region\u201d and is translated in the NASB as follows: country (2), earth (165), earthly (1), ground (20), land (46), soil (16).<\/p>\n It obviously comes down to context, then, and the opinion of linguists and commentators, with regard to its meaning in these three passages. We see from how the great majority of Bible translators render g\u00e9 <\/em>in these three passages what they<\/em> think it means. \u201cLand\u201d would be interpreted by virtually no one as \u201cthe entire earth.\u201d If the scholarly translators thought the latter was the intended meaning, they surely would have used the word \u201cearth\u201d or maybe \u201cworld.\u201d But almost all didn\u2019t, and that is highly significant.<\/p>\n Kittel\u2019s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em>, a standard source, defines g\u00e9 <\/em>in its appearance in Mark 15:33 as \u201d \u2018Land\u2019 (in the geographical sense) . . . (Palestine)\u201d (p. 116 in the one-volume edition). W.E. Vine\u2019s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/em> (under \u201cLand\u201d) states that at Luke 23:44 the word means \u201cland as describing a country or region.\u201d So the meaning seems very clear, and is not<\/em> as Carrier claimed.<\/p>\n What about the interpretation of a solar eclipse? None of the texts say that<\/em>, either. Matthew and Mark simply refer to \u201cdarkness\u201d without indicating cause. Luke says \u201cthe sun\u2019s light failed\u201d but that can refer just as easily to a dust storm<\/em> (which I shall defend) \u2014 or for that matter to a very severe thunderstorm \u2014 as to an eclipse. Catholics have no objection to astronomical calculations. If it is known that there could have been no solar eclipse at this place and time, we accept that, and so seek another explanation of this darkness. An eclipse certainly can\u2019t be \u201cproven\u201d from the text saying that the sun\u2019s light failed.<\/p>\n That being the case, we\u2019re glad to learn of the scientific data that rules out an eclipse. That\u2019s perfectly fine. It\u2019s not the only<\/em> option of interpretation. A solar eclipse has long been known to be impossible, anyway, because, as well-known commentator John Albert Broadus noted way back in 1886<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]he Passover was at the middle of the month, and the month always began with the new moon, so that the moon was now full, i.e., on the opposite side of the earth from the sun . . . this was not<\/em> an eclipse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How plausible is a dust storm, then? It\u2019s quite<\/em> plausible, since it\u2019s well-known that Israel has such storms every year; particularly in March and April: precisely at the time being discussed.\u00a0 The Jerusalem Post<\/em> reported on one such dust storm in Israel<\/a> on 2 March 2014: that shut down an airport. A web page from rove.me<\/a> noted \u201ca probability of dust storms in spring\u201d in Israel, and provided several photographs and a video of what they look like. Another web page about dust storms in Israel<\/a> (5-29-14), informed its readers:<\/p>\n \u201cHamsin\u201d is an Arabic word. . . . It refers to a unique set of weather conditions mostly in the spring and early summer months. In short a \u201chamsin\u201d is an oppressive, hot southerly or southeasterly, sandy wind blowing up from North Africa in the spring and summer months. There are approximately 50 days in a year when these weather conditions prevail in the Levant; North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula \u2013 hence the name. . . .<\/p>\n In Hebrew this weather condition is called a \u2018sharav\u2019 but in Israel it is commonly referred to by the Arabic name \u2013 hamsin. Typically, in Israel, during a Sharav, temperatures\u00a0\u00a0can increase by 10\u00b0 C within a few hours . This oppressive, dry heat is often accompanied by large amounts of dust.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the 2013 book, The Impact of Desert Dust Across the Mediterranean<\/em><\/a>, it is stated that \u201cIn a recent paper Ganor (1994) has presented a statistical analysis of the frequency of dust episodes (including dust storms) over central Israel. Most episodes occur in March or April . . . \u201c(p. 165<\/a>). The book,\u00a0Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in Arid Environments<\/em><\/a> (2007), by Fengxiang X. Han, noted that \u201cFive to ten dust storms per year is a common occurrence in Israel\u201d (p. 30<\/a>). On the same page is a photo of one such ominous storm, that looks like the famous Dust Bowl photos from the American southwest in the 1930s. On page 31 the author refers to \u201cthree dust storms in the spring of 2001.\u201d <\/span>A 1963 book from the US Navy<\/a> described these annual Israeli dust storms:<\/p>\n [T]he hot, dry, dust<\/span>-laden sirocco blows from between southeast and east, originating over the Arabian desert.\u00a0While the accompanying dust\u00a0<\/span>and sand may reduce\u00a0visibility\u00a0<\/span>to a few yards, they are usually shallow, and do not transport great amounts of material. The seasons of maximum frequency are from April to May or early June and from September through November. Durations are similar to khamsin. (p. 23<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n