--Critical Perspectives
from the Word of God

The execution of Jesus of Nazareth, by nailing him to a cross, occurred on Nisan 14. The exact date of Jesus’ crucifixion has been of great interest because his death and teachings profoundly affected the foundations of western culture. Although historians can pinpoint the exact date of death of many distinguished historical figures the date of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ remains a matter of scholarly debate.

Acculturated, or more crudely put, conditioned by the prejudices of their own time, all Christian scholars approach the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and the details of the Crucifixion with a set of preconceived notions and convictions. They seek, while usually claiming the Bible as their guide and standard of proof, to impose understanding fundamentally identical to their own—as Baptists, as Catholics, as Evangelicals, as Messianic Jews, and the like. Be aware that true objectivity, or detached analysis, is illusory. Detached, theoretically-oriented theology does not exist.

The praxis (practical application) of theologians, ministers, and religious writers cannot be separated from their theology. Or, as some state it, faith informs learning and scholarship. Hence, even though he or she vehemently denies it, the faith of any denominational leader, theologian, historian, or Bible student influences if not directs his or her scholarly conclusions. They do not separate their scholarly work from their internalized real-world values. Each places his or her own spin on the evidence available. Unfortunately, this is true of almost all published material discussing the chronology of the Crucifixion.

Nevertheless, among Protestant scholars there appears to be a growing consensus that CE 30 was the year of the Crucifixion. The main reservation we have for that year is that it appears to shorten Jesus' ministry, unreasonably, from 3 1/2 to 2 1/2 years. There seem to be far too many events to cram into that timeframe. Moreover, it raises collateral issues regarding the year of Jesus' birth and his age at the beginning of his ministry. Therefore, we cannot rule out CE 31. Based upon the evidence we have seen CE 30 or 31 appear to be the most probable dates. There is no absolute certainty in this matter as the available evidence is quite sparse, all documentary, and neither scientific nor archaeological.

For the week day of the Crucifixion the arguments range from the plausible to the inane, often heated and quite emotionally laced, for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. So far all the proofs and solutions we examined are not compelling. The Hebrew Calendar for CE 30 and 31 can accommodate the 14th of Nisan on any of these three weekdays depending on postponements assuming the priests used observation rather than mathematics to set the day of Tishri 1. See Reformed Jewish Calendar CE 1-99). There are well-developed arguments for both propositions.

Our conclusion, based upon the extant literature, is that the Calculated Hebrew Calendar, the mathematical calendar based on astronomical phenomena and a set of rules, provides the most probable weekday for the Crucifixion. By such reckoning the Crucifixion was most likely on Wednesday Nisan 14 whether in CE 30 or 31.

Those who do not want a Wednesday Passover-Crucifixion find it necessary to defeat the argument for the existence of the Calculated Calendar in Jesus' day as it fixes Nisan 14 on Wednesday in the year of the Crucifixion. Why? Because of cultural inertia. Most traditional Christians do not want to believe that their Savior neither died on Friday nor arose on Sunday but actually died Wednesday afternoon and arose the following Saturday (at sunset Saturday night). This was true in the ancient Church as well.

The Roman bishop Sixtus I (CE 115-25?), says Eusebius, forbad among his followers the Judeo-Christian practice of observing the Christian Passover on Nisan 14, and taught instead the celebration of the day of Resurrection at the close of the Pascal season on the Lord�s-day, that is, on Sunday (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.5; 5.24; Boyle 1955:86, 210). This Lord�s-day, the day of the risen Lord and the gift of the Holy Spirit, is now known as Easter Sunday.

Eusebius told of Byzantine bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, the acknowledged leader of the Gentile Greco-Roman bishops in the east but not of the Judeo-Christian bishops, visiting with Roman bishop Anicetus ca. CE 160. The latter sought to convince Polycarp to have the Greek churches abandon the Nisan 14 custom in favor of observing the resurrection feast, as had the Latin churches from the time of Roman bishop Sixtus I, that is ca. CE 115, but he failed in this quest. Eusebius wrote that the bishop of Rome, Anicetus (154-163), "could not persuade Polycarp not to keep it because he had always observed it with John, the Lord�s Apostle, and the other apostles" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:210-211).

When they concluded their meeting the two bishops "communed with each other; and in the church, Anicetus yielded to Polycarp, out of respect no doubt, the office of consecrating" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:211). That is, they celebrated the Eucharist ritual of that day with Byzantine bishop Polycarp presiding (see Baus 1990:281-285). The two Greco-Roman bishops parted amicably agreeing to disagree on the matter of the Nisan 14 custom (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.24, Boyle 1955:211). At this time Gentiles would have made up about one-third of Christians in the Roman empire.

Late in the second century the Roman bishop Victor I (bishop, CE 189-199) sought to abolish all observation of the Christian Passover on Nisan 14 in favor of the Lord�s-day, i.e. Pascal Sunday, observance in its place. He caused local synods of orthodox bishops to convene throughout Christendom to consider the matter and to determine the extent of the two customs. Accordingly, in CE 196 the Council of Caesarea convened with only bishops of Gentile stock from all over Palestine present and ruled that the Lord�s-day celebration would be the exclusive Christian practice in the region. Judeo-Christians ignored the Greco-Roman bishops who they saw as paganizing heretics.

Not until about CE 300 was there an overwhelming Gentile majority in the West sufficient to compel a Pascal Sunday resurrection feast observance, known today as Easter or Resurrection Sunday, upon Christendom. With the rise of the Nicenes in the Constantinian period, declaring themselves orthodox and catholic, the gentilization of Christianity went forward successfully. Orthodox Greco-Roman theology replaced Judeo-Christian theology as the dominant force in Christendom.

Nevertheless, Jesus said he would be entombed, not dead, for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40) which rationally does not make possible a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday morning Resurrection. The implication of this non-metaphorical literal language is that he remained dead in the tomb for three full days and three full nights which returns serious scholars to the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of occasion of these events.

As perceived by traditional Christians both Easter and Sunday church observance find their basis in a Sunday morning resurrection scenario not a late Saturday afternoon resurrection of Jesus. Could traditional Christendom handle switching the principal day of worship from Sunday to Saturday if Saturday became recognized by scholars as the day he arose from the grave? Can Sunday sabbatarians admit their mistake and apologize to Jews, Judeo-Christians, and the rest of Christendom for the consequences of forced Sunday keeping including centuries of laws of conformity, blue laws, religious persecution, and martyrdom flowing there from? We doubt it.

Those denominational leaders adhering to the Nicene Creed have to defeat the Wednesday theory to justify and preserve Easter observance, Lord's-day worship, well-established doctrine, and centuries of denominational tradition. A Thursday Nisan 14 crucifixion is a little more palatable to some Christian scholars because they can still argue Jesus' resurrection on an Easter Sunday (see for example Crossan 1998:xviii). Even so, based upon the available evidence, and Occam's Razor, it appears more probable than not that the Crucifixion was on a Wednesday in CE 30 or 31. We cannot at this time rule out CE 31 as the year of the crucifixion. 

The non-metaphorical literal language in Matthew's gospel states unequivocally that Jesus would be in the heart of the earth (his tomb) for "three days and three nights," that is for not less than 72 hours, as Jonah, who remained dead for the same period, was in the belly of the sea creature (Matthew 12:40 cf. Jonah 1:17). Indisputable confirmation of this non-metaphorical literal language occurs four times  in the Gospels, where the Greek says "after three days", at Mark 8:31, 9:31 , 10:34, and Matthew 27:63, where the context of each requires the Resurrection to have occurred after three full days (three 24-hour periods, from sunset to sunset). There simply cannot be "three days and three nights" in in a period which at the very most could not be than thirty-six hours and no more than two nights. Is anyone justified, then, to conclude that this expression is a figure of speech and an approximation? Of course not, but some do so anyway.

All too many Christian writers carelessly read the statement of rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra, that "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 4a]. The rabbi's statement conveys to his readers that part of a day can count as a day. So, when the word day appears by itself it can be a full day or a partial day reckoned as a compete day. The expression "seven days" is indefinite in the sense that it can mean either seven full days or part of two days and five full days. This necessitates, however, biblical writers to use additional language to refer specifically to a full 24-hour day. Unfortunately these Christian writers frequently overlook or ignore this important detail.

The rule is unmistakable, whenever the expression "day and night" or "night and day" appear together in the Hebrew Scriptures the period is never less than a full 24-hour day. This Hebrew idiom, appearing throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament, never meant anything less than a full day. When Matthew, who wrote to a first-century Judeo-Christian readership, stated that Jesus "fasted forty days and forty nights" (Matthew 4:2) he followed this practice thereby making it apparent to his early first-century Hebrew readers that he did not mean simply forty days (which could have included two partial days) but forty full or complete days. 

A basic rule in biblical exegesis is that a Scripture cannot mean (above all thousands of years after its original writing) what it never meant to its writer and intended readers. If we want to grow in grace and knowledge then we need read the scriptures in this context. To do otherwise gives people a distorted view.

There exists no plausible evidence that Jesus fasted less than forty full "days and nights", nor that he remained in the Tomb less than three full "days and nights", nor that Friday was the day of Jesus' execution. We wonder if some Christian writers who argue these propositions are simply mistaken or deliberately misrepresenting (eisegesis)?

Those arguing the Friday proposition fail to distinguish between the literal language, literal comparisons, and figurative language, in the scriptures they site as proof-texts. The proposition requires such highly speculative interpretation and so many qualifications that it rules itself out. Realize that first century Christianity, the Judeo-Christianity of apostolic times made up of ethnic Jews and Gentiles, was a radically different sociocultural system than those of today. In the culture of the early church the Sabbath was the day of meeting for collective worship not Sunday. It held a special place of commemorative significance in early Christianity.

If one’s task is to discern and to understand the values, beliefs, and worldviews of the first Christians, and to make them meaningful and intelligible in today’s world, then one must cautiously minimize cultural constraints and religious bias. Just because people believe Friday was the day of the Crucifixion does not make it so. In saying this we realize that many Christians will hold dearly to the remote chance that the Crucifixion occurred Friday and rest their confidence in that. We prefer, as scholars, better odds based upon hard data whether it be textual or scientific.

Page last updated: 12/29/03 06:31 PM.

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often