John records a third resurrection which was performed by Jesus, shortly before the crucifixion. This is the story of Lazarus, a close friend of Jesus’ from Bethany. Unlike the widow’s son at Nain or Jairus’ daughter, Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days prior to Jesus’ arrival. Commanding the removal of a stone which had blocked the entrance of Lazarus’ tomb for over half of the Jewish week of mourning was the most inexplicable of actions. The only possible justification for such a request would have been the resurrection of the occupant. This account demonstrates more clearly than any other the foreknowledge; the prophetic insight that Christ held concerning these miracles.

Vincent Van Gogh: La Résurrection de Lazare (d’après Rembrandt)

Before we examine the passage from John’s Gospel, a little background is in order. Some have questioned why John alone would chronicle this most remarkable of pre-crucifixion revivifications. One might reason that such an amazing incident should have been a keynote feature in the Synoptic Gospels as well. The answer to this seeming paradox, once again, depends on when each account was written. All four Gospel accounts record that Jesus’ life had been threatened by the Jewish authorities prior to the events at Lazarus’ tomb[1]. In Chapter IV we examined the reasons for this conflict between Christ and the Jewish rulers. John’s account preserves considerable detail of how this underlying premise affected the decisions and actions of the participants.

John tells us that the resurrection of Lazarus caused the chief priests and Pharisees to call for a meeting of the Sanhedrin[2]. This notable miracle had been performed at Bethany, a village only two miles east of Jerusalem. (The resurrections of the widow’s son at Nain and Jairus’ daughter were both in Galilee.) Because Lazarus had been entombed for four days, this resurrection could not be explained away as a case of misdiagnosis of death. The impact of Lazarus’ resurrection upon the Judean populace reinforced the ruling Jews commitment to kill Jesus. But more important to our understanding is John’s statement that the Jews resolved to kill Lazarus as well:

¹Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ²Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. ³Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

⁴But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ⁵“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” ⁶He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

⁷“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ⁸You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

⁹Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ¹⁰So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, ¹¹for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.

-The Gospel of John, 12:1-11

This is the only time, other than the resurrection account, that Lazarus of Bethany is mentioned in the New Testament. Interestingly, Matthew and Mark do record the events of this dinner, which they place at the house of one Simon the leper[3]. Matthew refers to very expensive perfume, while Mark mentions very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. Matthew and Mark agree that the ointment was contained within an alabaster jar. Matthew and Mark narrate that the perfume was used to anoint Jesus’ head, while John specifically states she poured the perfume on Jesus’ feet. Whether this means she anointed both Jesus’ head and feet, or that she anointed Jesus’ head and it dripped onto his feet, John was particularly moved by the picture of Mary wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair. You are capable of determining for yourself whether this difference is reconcilable.

But significantly, Matthew and Mark never refer in their accounts to Mary, Martha, or Lazarus by name. If the Jewish rulers had determined that Lazarus must die along with Jesus, who had been crucified prior to the creation of any Gospel narrative, then any responsible author of these events had to consider that a man’s life was at stake. This would be a necessary precondition until Lazarus either passed away, or until the destruction of Jerusalem which removed the Jewish leadership from power. Was Lazarus in hiding? Did an uneasy truce exist between Lazarus and the authorities as long as he maintained a low profile? These things are impossible to know today. When the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued the fatwa calling for Salmon Rushdie’s death in 1989, he caused the author of The Satanic Verses to spend many years in hiding. Even today, thirty years later, I am reluctant to mention his example, although I understand that the edict has expired.

Based upon the testimony of the early church we can date the Synoptic Gospels from the late 40’s to the mid 60’s AD. Luke’s compilation of the Acts of the Apostles ends abruptly after two years of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment – so 63 AD or slightly earlier. Luke’s Gospel was written before the Acts[4], probably during Paul’s two year imprisonment in Caesarea, (around 60 AD.) But a precise date is difficult to ascertain. All the testimony that we have examined agrees that Mark wrote his Gospel before Luke’s Gospel. And all witnesses agree that Matthew was written first. Since the Synoptic Gospels were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and John wrote his Gospel more than twenty years afterward, it makes sense that John alone would be released to disclose the details of Lazarus’ resurrection. This exercise reemphasizes the need to consider these accounts at face-value, from the perspective of the author and contemporaneous audience. Giving much deserved credit to the statements of the martyrs allows these perceived inconsistencies to melt away. And how much more worthy is it than to be forever calling falsehood the dying testaments of the slain.

And now we proceed with John’s record of the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany:

¹Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. ²This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. ³So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”

⁴When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” ⁵Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. ⁶Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

⁷Then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea.”

⁸“But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?”

⁹Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. ¹⁰It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.”

¹¹After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

¹²His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” ¹³Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

¹⁴So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, ¹⁵and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

¹⁶Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

-The Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verses 1-16, (NIV Translation)

John begins by identifying Lazarus and his family. The episode in which Mary anoints Jesus with perfume (v. 2) has not happened yet. John provides this information to distinguish Mary from the other Mary’s in John’s Gospel[a]. The essence of this passage is that Jesus waits several days after hearing of Lazarus’ illness before traveling to Judea. Once again, Jesus refers to death as having fallen asleep. The disciples are reluctant to return to Judea, where Jesus is now a wanted man. Thomas Didymus, who John alone brings to life as a character, exhorts the other disciples to travel to Judea to share Jesus’ death. Best remembered for his doubts concerning Jesus’ resurrection, this willingness to die for the Master indicates that Thomas was not devoid of faith. Several days later, Jesus and his disciples arrive in Bethany:

¹⁷On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. ¹⁸Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, ¹⁹and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. ²⁰When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.

²¹“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. ²²But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”

²³Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

²⁴Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

²⁵Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; ²⁶and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

²⁷“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”

²⁸And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” ²⁹When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. ³⁰Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. ³¹When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there.

³²When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

³³When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. ³⁴“Where have you laid him?” he asked.
“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

³⁵Jesus wept.

³⁶Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

³⁷But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

-The Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verses 17-37, (NIV Translation)

Jesus arrived in Bethany four days after Lazarus burial. This was the middle of the seven days of intense mourning proscribed by Jewish law; a time when all of the Jewish community, including representatives of the city council, would visit and console the bereaved family[5]. Lazarus’ family received news of Jesus’ arrival, and Martha went to speak with him. But Jesus had not yet entered the village, or made his arrival public knowledge. Remember that the Jewish leadership was still trying to apprehend Jesus. Martha called Mary aside, and privately told her that Jesus had asked for her. Some translations say that Martha secretly told her, or that Martha whispered this information to Mary. However that may be, the mourners were unaware of Mary’s destination when followed her. Once they had assembled in his presence, Jesus allowed the mourners to show him the grave:

³⁸ Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. ³⁹ “Take away the stone,” he said.
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”

⁴⁰ Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

⁴¹ So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. ⁴² I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

⁴³ When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” ⁴⁴ The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

-The Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verses 38-44, (NIV Translation)

Consider for a moment the implications of removing the stone from the tomb. What plane was Jesus operating on, that he could so petition the bereaved? Picture yourself making the same request to a dear friend at his close family member’s funeral. Two-thousand years after the fact, John’s remembrance still speaks to our hearts, allowing us to see what he saw and feel what he felt. Who present would not be moved? And small wonder the Pharisees’ allegation that Lazarus’ very existence drew converts to Christ.

When Lazarus, the dead man, came out, he was bound hand and foot with the linen strips indicative of Jewish preparation of a corpse[6]. The mourners had to undo the burial preparation by unwrapping the corpse, a procedure not addressed by Jewish tradition. Was Mary’s concern over the odor from the tomb valid? Did the reek of decay still cling to Lazarus after he was restored to life? Our testimony only tells us that all were convinced, and many came to Christ as a consequence.

John’s account of Lazarus easily meets our three criteria. John, Jesus’ beloved disciple, was the eyewitness. No one on the planet expressed doubt of Johannine authorship for this Gospel during the first fifteen–hundred years after it was published. We not only know who wrote it, but we know where, when, and why. It makes no sense that this disciple, who saw his own brother beheaded by Agrippa I and his closest friends martyred for sixty years, would be anything other than true to his message. And John still remembers a lot of inside information concerning the motivations for people’s behavior to be mistaken about something as graphic as Lazarus walking from the tomb.

[2] John 11:45-57

[3] Matthew 26:6-16; Mark 14:3-11

[4] Acts 1:1-2

[5] Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 782-783, Van Gorum, 1974

[6] Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 775-776, Van Gorum, 1974

(An Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

Part II

(iii.) The Eyewitness accounts:

With the availability of three eyewitness reports, we have the opportunity to compare the compatibility of the testimony for ourselves. From this point onward it will be much easier to evaluate the testimony of the resurrection accounts, for we have already proven the identity of each author. We have so proven by demonstrating the early acceptance of the four Canonical Gospels through the use of quotations by the earliest church fathers, men who were themselves trained and appointed by Jesus’ disciples. We have shown that these men, and their audience, accepted quotations from the Gospels as a final authority – the words of their Lord as preserved through His messengers. And this acceptance apparently pervaded the Christian world, throughout Rome, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece at the very least.

The Raising of Jairus' Daughter - Schnorr von Carolsfield

In addition, we have recovered the testimony of Jesus’ Apostles regarding the origins of the four Gospels as preserved through the succession of elders in Rome, Alexandria, and Asia Minor. We have shown that other such successions probably existed in North Africa, Greece, Syria, and Palestine. And we have found no evidence of any conflicting testimony of apostolic origin concerning the Gospels. Rather, we have observed the confident perception of Justin, Aristides, Irenaeus, Lucian, and others that all Christians were using the same Gospels.

So we are now armed with the knowledge that Matthew, Jesus’ disciple and eyewitness wrote the Gospel of Matthew with an Hebrew audience in mind. Mark was not an eyewitness, but rather the interpreter[a] for Jesus’ Apostle Peter who was. Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark at the request of Peter’s followers, so that they might have a record of the testimony of Peter as regards the risen Christ.  Luke was not an eyewitness, but states in his introduction that his record was written to provide a more complete account of events surrounding Jesus’ life than previous accounts, presumably Matthew’s and Mark’s. Luke was liaison between the church elders at Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul during the latter’s two year imprisonment at Caesarea, (see discussion pp 78-83). During that time, Luke would have had ample opportunity to interview the surviving Apostles as well as Jesus’ family. To make good his claim to have written a more complete account, Luke must have had access to eyewitness testimony of comparable status to the Apostles Matthew and Peter, the witnesses for the accounts Luke intended to complete.

Likewise we have shown that each of these men risked their lives for their testimony. From the Jewish persecutions which immediately followed the crucifixion, through the persecutions under Herod Agrippa I, to the Roman anti-Christian policies which originated with Nero, Christians died for their testimony every step of the way. If we can accept perseverance unto death as evidence of sincere testimony, we must believe that each of these accounts was compiled and sworn to by men who believed in their message.

If you are not convinced at this point that the four Gospels constitute sincere, eyewitness testimony of the life of Christ, then there is no reason to read further. We have spent considerable effort validating these records because they contain the only existing observations of resurrection that may be proven accurate. The rest of our investigation rests upon the evidence of these documents. If you skimmed over the ancient testimony, or the accompanying arguments because of the tedious nature of the subject matter, then I highly encourage you to reread the proofs of this Chapter, as well as Chapter IV. The effort required to understand your own beliefs will pay large dividends when you are able to determine what you stand for, and what the meaning of your life is.

For those who recognize the eyewitness quality of the data, here is the account of the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter. The text is being presented in parallel columns for easy comparison:

The first thing we notice is that Matthew’s account contains less detail than Luke’s or Mark’s. Mark and Luke identify Matthew’s ruler as Jairus, a ruler of the local Synagogue. If Matthew was written first, and to the Hebrews, as unanimously averred by ancient testimony, then Matthew may well have been protecting Jairus from Jewish persecution by preserving his anonymity. This would be reminiscent of the Pharisee Nicodemus’ visit to Jesus – nocturnal and secret to avoid repercussions from the religious elite[1]. By the time Mark and Luke wrote, the need for such secrecy may have passed. A noticeable difference is that the ruler’s daughter had already died according to Matthew, whereas Luke and Mark assert that she was dying. This is a possible discrepancy that we will consider as we continue. Luke adds that she was Jairus’ only daughter, and twelve years of age.

All three accounts report the encounter with the woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years. The interruption serves as a literary device for Luke and Mark. At the end of this conversation Jesus receives an update on the condition of Jairus’ daughter. There is really no reason for Matthew to place this episode in the middle of the story of Jairus. Unless it just happened that way.

After the miraculous healing, Mark and Luke report that Jesus received news of the daughter’s death. Mark reports that “some men” came from the house of Jairus, Luke states that “someone” from the house of Jairus delivered the message. Since it is reasonable to assume that one of the men told the news, I see no reason to preclude the possibility that several men came in Luke’s account as well. Here also is an answer to Matthew’s statement that the girl had already died. Since Matthew spent very little time on the incident compared to Mark and Luke, he did not provide a blow by blow analysis of the conversations. For his purposes, it was enough to say that the girl was dead before Jesus’ arrival. I suppose that these differences in presentation could be construed as contradiction, or disagreement. But I’ll bet the average District Attorney would be pretty satisfied with his case against a murderer if his three witnesses agreed this well.

Matthew speaks of flute players and a noisy crowd within the house of Jairus. Mark tells that Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. Luke says all the people were wailing and mourning for her. These statements are just three different way of describing the mourners required by Jewish law[b].  Once the daughter died, these mourners[2] would show respect and sorrow according to Eastern custom. Jewish law required that the corpse be buried on the very day of demise[3], so the mourners would arrive soon after death. Likewise it was forbidden to mourn or begin any funeral preparations until death had been confirmed[4].

The presence of mourners within Jairus’ house indicates that the girl had already been certified as deceased. Two sets of messengers were probably sent at the time of death by Jairus’ family; one to fetch mourners and begin funeral preparations, and the other to inform Jairus of his daughter’s death. Jesus tells the mourners in each version to be quiet and allow him some working room, stating that the girl ‘is not dead but asleep’. This does not mean that Jesus had detected a pulse. Rather, this is a common usage among those who believe that the dead may rise again[5]. The mourners make fun of Jesus. Death has already been pronounced. Any parent who has had to explain the death of a beloved pet to their child understands the certainty involved. She’s not coming back.

Then Jesus takes her by the hand, and speaks to her lifeless body – and she gets up! Standing up, walking around, and eating is definitive proof of life. And she was alive after the Jewish authorities had publicly declared her death. So what are the possibilities? Could she have merely been comatose?  As we observed at Nain, this doesn’t really solve any difficulties. Are we to presume that Jesus was some magnificent physician who could discern the difference between a deep coma and death; a difference unperceivable to all others? Why would Jesus tell the father to have faith before he even saw the girl’s body? A comatose victim returning to normalcy at Jesus’ word is hardly less miraculous than a dead girl returning to life under the same conditions.

Could the whole thing have been a hoax? Only the girl’s parents, and the Apostles Peter, James, and John were allowed to witness the actual resurrection event. Would Peter and James have gone to their deaths, and would John have risked death, to protect the elaborate charade of a false prophet, long since executed? The tone of their various writings certainly seems sincere, and their own disciples were convinced of these Apostles’ pure intent. These three were Jesus’ closest associates according to all testimony, (including Matthew’s and Luke’s.) So it doesn’t seem likely that they would be unaware of the true events.

No, these disciples stood for what they believed to be true their entire lives, and then two of them died for those beliefs. This dedication to the truth was part of the inspiration that they provided to their own disciples, without which the Christian church would have died in infancy. If the testimony were of commonplace events, no one would question the written accounts. Because the testimony is of human resurrection, we wonder whether we have missed some alternative explanation. But the truth, if we allow ourselves to be guided by the evidence, is that something miraculous happened with Jairus’ daughter. Other explanations are merely reflections of our inability to accept an observation beyond our own experience.

Finally, we should make certain that the observations were reported to us in pristine condition. Considering the case for each account, we must find:

(1)  a. The reporter either personally witnessed the event or;

b. The reporter personally and exhaustively interviewed all available eyewitnesses and accurately reported a compilation of their testimony, or;

c. both a. and b. above.

(2)  Nether the reporter, nor his eyewitnesses, are embellishing the account, (i.e. lying,) for some unknown motive.

(3)  Neither the reporter, nor his eyewitnesses are mistaken in their understanding of   events.

Matthew would have personally heard the announcement of the daughter’s death, and later seen the evidence of her resurrection. So Matthew satisfies premise (1) a.; with the exception that he was not present when Jesus’ performed the resurrection. He must have been supplied with the details of Jesus’ method by those present. But as far as details are concerned, Matthew’s account is much abbreviated compared to the other two. There is no reason to suspect that Matthew, who gave up a lucrative position as a Roman tax collector[6] to follow Jesus, and who later risked his life to remain in the Christian movement, would embellish the account. So premise (2) is satisfied. Matthew’s account is pretty cut and dry, so there’s really no room for him to have misinterpreted anything. He heard the declaration of the girl’s death. Later she lived. Witnesses who were present filled in the details of how it happened. So premise (3) looks good as well.

Mark heard the story directly from Peter, who was an eyewitness. So Mark satisfies (1) b. Mark was apparently working with Peter at the risk of his own life, so he wrote a sincere account, proving premise (2). Peter, according to Mark, testified that the girl was declared dead, and later rose and walked at Jesus command. However it happened, it’s hard to see how Peter or Mark could have mistaken these things.

Luke had access to Peter, John, (James had already been beheaded) and others, thus fulfilling premise (1) b. We don’t know what became of Jairus or his daughter, but they were also potential witnesses for each of our authors. In his preface, Luke stresses the careful research that went into his history. And Luke was one of Paul’s few companions just prior to the latter’s execution. Standing with Paul after his condemnation made Luke a criminal accomplice to the aged Apostle. So premises (2) and (3) appear valid as well.

In addition, the three Gospel accounts of Jairus’ daughter corroborate each other with only minor differences. These differences are reconcilable to within the limits of overlapping eyewitness accounts. Given that all three premises have all been satisfied for each of the three reports, we appear to have proven a bona fide resurrection.

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

[b] As an example, Jewish law required a husband to provide at least two pipers and one keening woman for the death of a wife. This was required regardless of the family’s financial ability. For an excellent discussion of first century Jewish mourning and funeral practices, see Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, pp 773-787.

[2] Jeremiah 9:17-21; 48:36; Amos 5:16

[3] Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 774, Van Gorum, 1974

[4] Semahoth I

[5] Acts 7:60; 13:36; I Corinthians 11:30; 15:6; 18, 20; I Thessalonians 4:14, 15; 5:6, 10; The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter IV; Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, XLIV; Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, IV;

[6] Matthew 9:9; Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, III

(An Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

Part I

…Having established the genuineness of the four canonical Gospel Accounts; having researched their origins and pedigrees; having looked at every witness, Greek, Roman, Jew, and Christian whose testimony could bear on the subject; and realizing that there exists no contradictory testimony; we may proceed to examine the resurrection accounts of the eyewitnesses. We are not denying the existence of other Gnostic and Apocryphal literature; we are merely recognizing that none of this corpus can produce a respectable pedigree. The literature which cannot be confirmed to be from actual witnesses cannot contribute to this discussion of resurrection as a scientific fact. We will leave the investigation of unsubstantiated legend to others. In our search for evidence of resurrection, we have discovered every source of legitimate testimony concerning Christ’s ministry on earth, and we will now use the confirmed testimony of his witnesses to continue the investigation.

The Raising Of Jairus' Daughter - Ilya Yefimovich Repin

6. The Resurrection of the Daughter of Jairus

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke each preserve a resurrection account involving the daughter of one Jairus, ruler of a local Synagogue. This is the first time that we have encountered testimony from multiple eyewitnesses of the same resurrection event. Before we delve into in-depth analysis of these observations, it is fitting that we should address a modern bias which frequently masquerades as “science”.

(i.) The Synoptic Problem:

With three records based upon eyewitness testimony of the same events, there are likely to be many incidences of overlapping material. These similarities may extend to distinctive nuances in the deeds performed, or striking turns of phrase by the participants. Also, based upon the unanimous testimony of the earliest students of the Gospels, we know that it was quite conceivable that Mark could have possessed a Hebrew version of Matthew when he composed the Gospel of Mark. Luke claimed in his introduction to know of a plurality of previous Gospel accounts, and there is no evidence for any belief that these were other than Matthew and Mark. And whoever translated Matthew into Greek could be expected to have had access to all three records of apostolic testimony. So similarities between the various accounts are to be expected.

In addition, there are many differences between the various Gospel accounts. Luke was the only one to preserve the resurrection of the widow’s son at Nain. Mark doesn’t even begin his narrative until the ministry of John the Baptist. And episodes preserved by more than one Gospel are frequently presented from noticeably different perspectives, with one account greatly expanding upon material that is largely glossed over in another. If Matthew indeed wrote to Hebrew converts, and Mark to the Romans, and Luke to a Greek target audience, as our contemporaneous evidence explicitly avers, then such differences in presentation are also to be expected.

The reconciliation of the differences and similarities of these first three Gospel accounts is known as the Synoptic Problem[1]. This problem is a legitimate scientific pursuit. The testimony of three truthful witnesses, as anyone in law enforcement will agree, will yield a more complete picture of what actually happened when integrated into one harmonious sequence of events. This can be difficult to achieve even when approached with dispassion and objectivity. But sometimes, in a courtroom setting, someone with a vested interest contrary to the truth may interrogate the witnesses. Such a person, perhaps an attorney who must discredit the testimony damning to his own client, or an investigator who must close a case for the advancement of his own career, may see the testimony as an obstacle in his path. Depending upon the personal integrity of such an interrogator, this bias may take the form of asking “leading” questions, or construing differences in detail as “proof” of false testimony, or, (in the absence of integrity,) even casting aspersion upon the witnesses themselves.

(ii.) The Pseudo-Scientific Approach:

With this analogy in mind, I would like to arm the reader against certain aspersions which have been cast upon the Gospel accounts. There are two basic schools of anti-Gospel rhetoric. Depending upon which school is speaking, either the differences between the Gospel accounts are irreconcilable, thus “proving” them untrustworthy. Or the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels are so great that they must all be mere embellishment of a common account. (So the Gospel accounts are either too different…or too much alike …we can’t determine which?)

The “difference” school claims to have compared the various Gospel accounts and to have found discrepancies which they say are irreconcilable. Having tried their very hardest to resolve these problems without success, they have determined that the Gospel accounts are “full of contradictions,” (sometimes extrapolating this result to the entire Christian Bible.) They therefore conclude that the four Gospels of Canon are unreliable, relegating them to the status of legend or myth.

It’s funny, if I were to hear two witnesses with conflicting testimony, (going back to our courtroom analogy,) I might think that one of them was not telling the truth. But I would not conclude that ALL of the witnesses were lying. How do you determine that both witnesses are lying just by comparison of their statements? There is no logical reason to discount BOTH statements unless their content disagrees with other known facts. So it seems that, maybe, there is another criteria upon which the witnesses are being judged? As I write this passage, I have on my desk a volume entitled “Jesus Christ: The Greatest Life”, by Johnston M. Cheney and Stanley Ellison Th.D.  This book is a harmony of the Gospel accounts, which in it own words accomplishes:

The subject was Jesus Christ, and the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Arising from the different eyewitness accounts of His life, each of their biographies has a distinct flavor and a unique story line. In spite of their uniqueness, however, it is possible to weave all four of them together completely and without contradiction – adding nothing, deleting nothing – using only the data provided by the authors.

-From the Foreword, Jesus Christ: The Greatest Life, by Johnston M. Cheney and Stanley Ellison Th.D.

The first known attempt to create such a harmony was Tatian’s Diatessaron which was created in the latter half of the second century. The Syrian church used Tatian’s harmony for hundreds of years. I honestly don’t know how many other harmonies have been compiled over the last 2000 years. But it is apparent that some people believe that they can reconcile all four Gospels. So who to believe? In my youth, I studied quite a bit of math and physics. I do recall students saying that they had encountered a problem which could not be solved. I generally gravitated toward those who believed they had solved the problem, rather than those who bemoaned their impossible dilemma.

The last thing that I’ve noticed about the “difference” school is that, having discovered the irreconcilable “contradictions” in the Gospels, and the Bible as a whole, they frequently argue against the authenticity of all other early testimony which bears on the origins of the Gospel accounts. Thus, Suetonius’ “Chrestus” was some slave otherwise unknown to history. The execution of Tacitus’ “great multitudes” of Christians is a Christian forgery, part of a great conspiracy. Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum is yet another forgery, (See Appendix I.) The letters of Ignatius are all forgeries. And all testimony from other church fathers is untrustworthy because of their Christian bias. These men were either fanatics blinded by zeal or dark conspirators in a great cover-up.

So, one by one, the “difference” school finds an excuse to throw out each piece of evidence. Even though the evidence, as our investigation has shown, presents a compelling and self-consistent explanation of how the Gospels came to be. But the root of their issue with the testimony isn’t with the character of the witnesses. The root of their issue is with the content of the testimony, which they believe contradicts scientific truth. After all, if we believe that the Gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony we must consider the possibility that prophecies and resurrections have occurred. And these things are not scientific, are they? This is the bias that we must address.

The bias that we have uncovered is really an ideology which is masquerading as science. This belief system, which we will call Pseudo-Science, rests upon faith in the tenet that things not yet proven by science have somehow been disproved by science. But make no mistake; Pseudo-science is a religion, jealously competing with Christianity for converts. And even though it sounds cooler in Academic circles to say prophecy and resurrection are scientifically impossible, sounding scientific does not make something scientific. Science doesn’t care whether prophecy sounds scientific or not. If the evidence supports the occurrence of prophecy, then science believes in prophecy. If no evidence for prophecy exists, then prophecy is not scientific until such evidence is discovered and examined. But prophecy has by no means been disproved by lack of evidence. And science does not allow anyone to throw out observations and evidence which do not agree with current dogma. Not by casting aspersions on the witnesses; and not by nit-picking procedures and methods until the observations are discredited. Throwing out the evidence is a tool of the religious faithful to quell ideas which threaten their beliefs.

Consider for a moment this hypothetical case: We live in a world in which Newtonian physics is the accepted scientific model. We have now advanced to the point that some of our observations begin to exhibit relativistic effects. Either we are dealing with great masses, or great speeds, but either way our measurements are diverging from Newtonian predictions. Now we must face a hard choice: Either reexamine the Newtonian model that has guided us for hundreds of years, open to the possibility that the model may need revision or replacement; or throw out the evidence which dares to disagree with scientific “fact”. If we recalibrate our instruments so that they only measure Newtonian results, we have fallen into the worship of Pseudo-Science. Science has no pride of ownership. No scientific theory is ever a “fact”. Science requires that we ruthlessly adjust every existing model to best fit the existing data, no matter how attached we become to an existing theory. And the fact that science only deals with what it can measure does not preclude the possibility that phenomena exist which science has yet to measure.

So then, if we have uncovered eyewitness testimony of prophecy, resurrection, or other uncommon phenomena in the historical record, these are the observations upon which we base our model. We have every right to examine the testimony for accuracy and reliability. We must be certain that the testimony derives from actual, historically verifiable eyewitnesses. And we have the responsibility to investigate the witnesses’ character and motives. But we may not throw out the evidence due to disagreement with preconceived beliefs.

Additional support for this analysis is provided by the observation that those who study the Gospels the most; those who delve into the literature to discover the precepts that they will use for personal guidance – do not find the differences to be irreconcilable. Wouldn’t it make sense that the “contradictions” would be most noticeable to those trying to base their lives on the Gospel teachings? But usually those who find irreconcilability are those who start with the bias that the contents of the Gospel accounts preclude their authenticity; in other words, those who commence their investigation having already concluded the impossibility of the narratives. Having considered the difference school of anti-Gospel rhetoric, we now move on to the similarity school.

According to the similarity school, the Gospel accounts exhibit literary dependence. Since Luke’s introduction asserts his knowledge of previous accounts; Since our investigation points to widespread early proliferation of Christian literature; And since several actual eyewitnesses might be expected to remember a distinctive turn of phrase, (consider Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat”, or “This was their Finest Hour”); the basic premise of literary dependence is to be expected. The unexpected and curious response lies within the proposed explanations for the dependence.

Somehow, we are told, this dependence reveals that none of the Gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony at all. Rather, they are all mere embellishments of the original eyewitness account(s), corrupted to project later, unhistorical dogma onto the true and pristine message of Christ. This original document, frequently called “Q”, (from the German “quelle” or “source,”) was a collection of all Jesus’ sayings as well as key incidents in Jesus’ life written by the actual witnesses, which predated and was of far greater authority than the four Canonical Gospels. Modern scholars are amazingly able to predict, with micrometric precision, that the Q document was written by people who had no concept that Jesus was Divine. Q did not believe in miracles. Q saw the “historical” Jesus, a poor ignorant Jewish boy caught up in social and political issues that were beyond his understanding, and finally executed by the Romans for political dissidence.

Yes, Q is the Gospel that agrees with the ideology of its discoverers.

The only problem with this Utopian view, of course, is that no evidence whatsoever exists for Q other than the inferences which our dedicated (and incidentally naturalistic) scholars “see” in the Canonical Gospels. No ancient writer has ever quoted from or referred to Q, and no manuscript has ever been found. In fact no hint of Q exists in any literature before the nineteenth century. But we are told that those who believe in the authenticity of the Canonical Gospels are naïve, while those who understand the nature of Q, inferred from the discredited Canonical Gospels, have achieved enlightenment. The astute reader will have no difficulty discerning the presence of Pseudo-Science, once again.

It is embarrassing to have to address the issues of Pseudo-Science. And I apologize to the reader for the distraction. But the use of Academic authority to perpetrate ideologically “correct” views, or to promote distorted historical interpretations for profit, requires a response. I have great confidence that each reader is capable of discerning the truth for themselves, provided that they hold every proposed theory to the same, truly scientific standard. Gather all the evidence, weigh the evidence, base all theories on the evidence, and require adherence to valid logical argument forms. Let the data suggest the answer. The privilege to choose your own beliefs carries with it the responsibility to understand the basis for those choices. What a shame to let someone else decide what you believe.

(To be continued)

1. The Jewish Calendar

The festivals of Judaism at the time of Christ were celebrated in accordance with the Jewish lunar calendar. This lunar calendar consisted of twelve lunar months, each containing twenty-nine or thirty days[a], and each commencing and ending with the phase of “new” moon. Our modern calendar, based upon the Roman model, requires that twelve months contain 365 days. A year based upon the Jewish calendar averaged 354 days. In order to account for the time difference between twelve lunar cycles and a year containing 365 days, an additional month was added to the Jewish calendar roughly seven times every nineteen years. This way each month and festival would continue to occur in the appropriate season, (i.e. spring, summer, harvest, planting, etc). Any attempt to reconcile a chronology of events dating to the time of Christ must account for differences between the various calendars.

2. The Jewish Day

The Jewish day begins at sunset rather than midnight, in accordance with the principle:

⁵ God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. - Genesis 1:5

So, to a Jew of Jesus’ day, Saturday would begin at roughly 7:00 P.M. (sunset) on what we call Friday night. All that evening and night would be the early part of Saturday, and the daylight portion of Saturday would continue until sunset on Saturday night. As soon as the sun sets on Saturday night, Sunday would begin.

In addition, the daylight portion of each day was divided into twelve equal “hours”. The length of these “hours” would vary depending upon the time of year. In summer, the days are longer, and so the hours are longer.

3. The Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread

The Passover was observed on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, the month of Aviv or Nisan, at sunset:

⁴ ” ‘These are the LORD’s appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: ⁵ The LORD’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. ⁶ On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. ⁷ On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. ⁸ For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.’ ” -Leviticus 23:4-8[b]

The LORD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread (v 6) was observed from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the same month. The first (v 7) and last (v 8) days of this feast are sacred days on which no work is to be performed, similar in this regard to the regular weekly Sabbath:

¹ The LORD said to Moses, ² “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

³ ” ‘There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD. -Leviticus 23:1-3

And the Passover may not be observed anywhere except the Temple at Jerusalem, hence the migration of pilgrims to the Holy City recorded through scripture[c]:

⁵ You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the LORD your God gives you ⁶ except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. There you must sacrifice the Passover in the evening, when the sun goes down, on the anniversary of your departure from Egypt. ⁷ Roast it and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose. Then in the morning return to your tents. ⁸ For six days eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day hold an assembly to the LORD your God and do no work. -Deuteronomy 16:5-8

The scriptural requirements for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread have not changed since the time of Moses, who according to tradition received these instructions directly from G-d. But the practical application of scripture and the practices associated with Passover have varied as a consequence of earthly limitations. In modern Judaism no lamb is sacrificed, because there is no priest to perform the sacrifice, and no Temple at which to sacrifice. Therefore today’s Passover is no guide to the practices of the Second Temple period. For the purposes of any chronology of Jesus’ crucifixion, which occurred at the time when many had come to Jerusalem to observe the Passover, we must have knowledge of the procedures followed in Roman occupied Judea under Tiberius Caesar.

4. The Passover during the Time of the Crucifixion of Christ

Philo Judaeus was an influential Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt from about 20 BC to about 50 AD. Philo risked his life to plead for the Jewish way of life before Gaius (Caligula), so his commitment to truth and personal conviction seem assured[d]. Since Philo was born before Christ’s nativity and lived nearly twenty years after the crucifixion, his testimony concerning the customs observed at Passover should be particularly relevant to our study. In his treatise on the Special Laws, II, The Fourth Festival, (XXVII (145-149), Philo discusses “the Passover, which the Hebrews call pascha, on which the whole people offer sacrifice, beginning at noonday and continuing till evening” (145). He further states “…the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions” (148). Finally he tells us that this all occurs on “And this universal sacrifice of the whole people is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the [first] month…” (149). Another witness, Josephus, writing of Passover shortly before the Jewish revolt (65 AD), puts it thusly:

So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice, (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves,) and many of us are twenty in a company, found the number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; which, upon the allowance of no more than ten that feast together, amounts to two millions seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons[e] that were pure and holy; for as to those that have the leprosy, or the gonorrhea, or women that have their monthly courses, or such as are otherwise polluted, it is not lawful for them to be partakers of this sacrifice; nor indeed for any foreigners neither, who come hither to worship. -Josephus, Wars, VI, ix, 3

This agrees well with Philo, except for the times of sacrifice. We will presume that that Josephus is counting hours from daybreak since the Talmud considers invalid as a Passover sacrifice any animal killed before noon on the fourteenth of Nisan (Mishnah Zebahim 1:2, 1:3; Bavli Zebahim 91A). The Talmud was composed after the destruction of the Second Temple, but many of the ordinances arguably refer to practices of the Temple at the time of Christ.

So according to our testimony, two and a half to three million pilgrims would descend upon Jerusalem in the middle of Nisan to celebrate the Passover. On the afternoon of the fourteenth, between noonday and evening or between 3:00 to 5:00 P.M., hundreds of thousands of lambs would be slain, their blood caught by a priest in the Temple court and sprinkled upon the alter. Then the carcasses were roasted with fire, and taken to a place chosen by each family where the rest of the Passover meal had been prepared. There, with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, the lamb was eaten as the sun set. But as we have seen, according to Jewish observance the fifteenth day of Nisan begins when the sun sets on the fourteenth. So the Passover meal ushered in the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, upon which the children of Israel would hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work (Lev.23:8).

5. The Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Time of the Crucifixion of Christ

Since the Passover meal also involves unleavened bread, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread immediately follows the Passover Seder, many people in Jesus’ time did not distinguish them as two separate festivals. This was the case when Luke explained, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching…” (Luke 21:1), and “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.” (Luke 21:7).

Before we accuse Luke of being an ignorant Gentile, consider the usage of Josephus, “…we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread.” (Ant., II, xv, 1). Where did the eighth day come from if not the inclusion of the Passover? Or, again, “…at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” (Ant., XIV, ii, 1), and “…on the feast of unleavened bread, which was now come, it being the fourteenth day of the month…” (Wars, V, iii, 1) [f]. Josephus grew up in a leading sacerdotal family, a descendent of the Hasmonaean priest-kings. Surely he would be familiar with the religious terminology of his own time?

This convention also appears in the Talmud, with examples such as: “R. Jehoshua said: ‘By “seven” is meant the seven days of Passover, by “eight” is meant…’” (Bavli ‘Erubin, 40B); “…Come and hear: He who has not kept the feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles…” (Bavli Hagigah, 17B). If the fourteenth of Nisan is combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread (seven days from the fifteenth through the twenty-first) as the “Passover”, how is this not eight days of Passover? Could the term Passover apply to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, not including the actual day of Passover? It appears that these terms could be used quite loosely, and with variant meanings. But since these are the words of Israel’s most prominent priests and Rabbi’s, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the terms for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were often used interchangeably. Sometimes the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” contains the actual day of Passover, and sometimes the “Passover” includes days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Not so with Philo, to whom the distinction is clear:

THE FIFTH FESTIVAL

XXVIII. (150) And there is another festival combined with the feast of the Passover, having a use of food different from the usual one, and not customary; the use, namely, of unleavened bread, from which it derives its name…(155) And this feast is begun on the fifteenth day of the month, in the middle of the month, on the day on which the moon is full of light…(156) And, again, the feast is celebrated for seven days…(157) And of the seven days, Moses pronounces two, the first and the last, holy; giving, as is natural, a preeminence to the beginning and to the end…(158) And the unleavened bread is ordained because their ancestors took unleavened bread with them when they went forth out of Egypt, under the guidance of the Deity… – Philo, The Special Laws, II, The Fifth Festival, XXVIII (150-158)

Philo’s explanation fits very well with the ordinances described by Moses in Leviticus Chapter 23, our starting point for the definitions of these festivals. He confirms that this feast begins on the fifteenth of the month, even as he explained that Passover is observed on the fourteenth. He notices that the fifteenth is always a “full” moon, which is obviously the case with lunar months which commence upon the phase of “new” moon. In other words, the month begins upon first sighting of the “new” moon; the moon becomes brighter for the first half of the month, becomes “full” in the middle of the month, and wanes during the second half of the month. The next “new” moon marks the beginning of the next lunar month.

Philo also confirms that the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread were observed as holy and preeminent in his own time. Exactly how these days were observed, he does not say. We may assume that a sacred assembly was held, and that these two days were treated as a Sabbath in regards to work, since these were the stipulations of Moses, to whom Philo defers in this regard. And this brings us to a final point concerning these Jewish rituals. For when G-d ordained the appointed feasts of the LORD (Leviticus 23:1) through Moses, starting with the weekly Sabbath (v 3), and the feasts of Passover (v 5) and Unleavened Bread (v 6-8), the offering of First Fruits was next established (v 9-14).

6. The Offering of First Fruits during the Time of the Crucifixion of Christ

Starting with Moses, as seems appropriate:

⁹ The LORD said to Moses, ¹⁰ “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. ¹¹ He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. ¹² On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, ¹³ together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil-an offering made to the LORD by fire, a pleasing aroma-and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. ¹⁴ You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. -Leviticus 23:9-14

Once again, the question is not whether, but how this ordinance was celebrated during the time of Christ. The First Fruits offering appears between the feasts of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost in Leviticus Chapter 23. Since the list appears to be sequential, it is reasonable that First Fruits happens somewhere in this order. The first problem is when? The feast is associated with an early grain harvest, but the only specific time reference is that the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath (v 11). To what Sabbath, then, does this refer? After Moses’ death, his successor Joshua held the Passover at a place called Gilgal. The observance of this Passover provides additional insight:

¹⁰ On the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, while camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, the Israelites celebrated the Passover. ¹¹ The day after the Passover, that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land: unleavened bread and roasted grain. ¹² The manna stopped the day after they ate this food from the land; there was no longer any manna for the Israelites, but that year they ate of the produce of Canaan. -Joshua 5:10-12

The fact that they ate bread and roasted grain from the produce of Canaan for the first time was proof to Hebrew scholars that the First Fruits offering must have already been performed, “You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God.” (Leviticus 23:14). Based upon this precedent, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time counted the fifteenth Nisan as the day that Passover was completed, and concluded that the Special Sabbath of the first day of Unleavened Bread was indeed that Sabbath spoken of in Leviticus 23:11. This led Pharisees to celebrate First Fruits on the sixteenth of Nisan, the day after the (Special) Sabbath of the fifteenth. The sect of Sadducees, however, reasoned that the Passover at Gilgal must have fallen on a weekly Sabbath (either 14 or 15 Nisan fell on the weekly Sabbath; it can be reasoned either way). So in the view of the Sadducees First Fruits always fell on the Sunday which followed the first weekly Sabbath after Passover[g]. Philo appears to support the position of the Pharisees when he says:

THE SIXTH FESTIVAL

XXIX. (162) There is also a festival on the day of the paschal feast, which succeeds the first day, and this is named the sheaf, from what takes place on it; for a sheaf is brought to the alter as a first fruit both of the country which the nation has received for its own, and also of the whole land…- Philo, The Special Laws, II, The Sixth Festival, XXIX (162)

Philo’s explanation seems very reminiscent of the language in the Book of Joshua, and he never assigns an actual date. But Josephus is unambiguous when he tells us:

In the month of Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and is the beginning of our year, on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries, (for in this month it was that we were delivered from bondage under the Egyptians,) the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice which I before told you we slew when we came out of Egypt, and which was called the Passover; and so we do celebrate this passover in companies, leaving nothing of what we sacrifice till the day following. The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them. And while they suppose it proper to honor God, from whom they obtain this plentiful provision, in the first place, they offer the first-fruits of their barley, and that in the manner following: They take a handful of the ears, and dry them, then beat them small, and purge the barley from the bran; they then bring one tenth deal to the altar, to God; and, casting one handful of it upon the fire, they leave the rest for the use of the priest. And after this it is that they may publicly or privately reap their harvest. They also at this participation of the first-fruits of the earth, sacrifice a lamb, as a burnt-offering to God. -Josephus, Antiquities, III, x, 5

This passage of Josephus really defines the relationships between all three festivals, as well as discussing sacrifices performed for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the offering of First Fruits. Josephus’ opinion concerning the sixteenth of Nisan is also corroborated by Talmudic passages, “He ordained also at the same time that on the sixteenth day of Nissan, called the day of Noph (the day of waving the omer: Lev. xxiii. 11)” (Bavli Succah, 41A), and “On the fifth of Nissan the second rain fell, and on the sixteenth of that month they already offered up the new grain…” (Bavli Taanith, 5A).

7. Summary of Festal Observances During the Time of Christ’s Passion

(a.) 14 Nisan: The Passover; (sometimes included as a part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread)

(i.) Various ordinances concerning ceremonial cleanliness for Passover (being all duly purified with holy ablutions” (Philo, the Special Laws, II, The Fourth Festival, XXVII, 148) ; start no new work after noon in preparation for Sabbath of fifteenth;

(ii.) From noon to evening, all of Israel sacrifices their lambs in the Temple courtyard. One lamb suffices for each company of ten to twenty Israelites. A Priest catches the blood and sprinkles it on the alter. The lambs are roasted with fire, and taken to the place where each company has planned their feast.

(iii.) The Passover meal is eaten as the sun sets. The meal ushers in the fifteenth of Nisan, and with it the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

(b.) 15 Nisan: The First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Special Sabbath); (first day of seven day feast also sometimes designated as the week of Passover)

(i.) Begins at sunset of the fourteenth. First day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which will continue for seven days. For seven days, every day, they will they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. (Jos., Ant., III, x, 5). We don’t know anything else about this feast for the priest(s).

(ii.) In addition to which: And of the seven days, Moses pronounces two, the first and the last, holy; giving, as is natural, a preeminence to the beginning and to the end…- Philo, The Special Laws, II, The Fifth Festival, XXVIII (157); and ⁷On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. ⁸ For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. (Leviticus 23:7-8). So the fifteenth was like a Sabbath as regarding work, and the Pharisees had interpreted that it was indeed the very Sabbath which preceded the First Fruits offering. The sacred assembly was also a unique feature to this day.

(c.) 16 Nisan: The Offering of First Fruits; (also called waving the sheaf or omer)

(i.) Second day of Feast of Unleavened Bread.

(ii.) Not a Sabbath. (Although it could occur on the weekly Sabbath if Passover fell on a Thursday).

(iii.) The First Fruits of the barley harvest are offered to the Lord. After this offering, people may begin to eat the new harvest.

(iv.) A lamb is also sacrificed as a burnt-offering to God.

(v.) The normal daily sacrifices associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread were performed in addition to the First Fruits offerings.

8. The Reconciliation of the Gospel Chronologies

All four Gospel accounts agree that Jesus and his disciples had traveled to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread[h]. Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution were all concurrent with the activities of these holy days. The first definitive reference to a specific day occurs during the planning of Jesus’ Last Supper, as the three Synoptic writers disclose:

All three writers speak of preparing the Passover meal on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Obviously, they do not mean that they started on the fifteenth (first day of Unleavened Bread) to prepare a meal that would be eaten on the fourteenth (Passover). Rather they are combining the Passover day and the Feast of Unleavened Bread into one festival, a usage that we have already noticed. But Mark and Luke both specify that this was the very day on which the Passover lamb was to be slain, the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan according to all of our first century sources. And the upper room was secured with the explanation that Jesus and his disciples would there partake of the traditional Passover meal. So it appears that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples as the sun set at the conclusion of the fourteenth of Nisan, and that this meal that was technically finished on the fifteenth of Nisan. We have no indication of the actual day of the week in these passages.

Other theories, which are widely accepted today, conclude that the Last Supper was eaten at sunset between the thirteenth and fourteenth of Nisan. Justification for these beliefs is provided along various lines of reasoning: (1.) The Passover was always intended to be eaten at the sunset commencing the thirteenth of Nisan, and Jewish tradition misinterpreted the LORD’s intent in this regard[i]; (2.) Jesus, having foreknowledge that he was to sacrifice his life at the time when the Passover lamb was sacrificed, was granted special dispensation to celebrate the Passover a day early[j]; (3.) The Jewish custom provided for sacrificing the Passover lamb on the afternoon of the thirteenth, if the fifteenth fell on a weekly Sabbath. This was done so that the Passover sacrifice would not interfere with the preparation for the Sabbath[k]; (4.) Various other reconstructions based upon differences in calendars and scriptural interpretations between various Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Qumran), as well as differences between Galilean and Judean practices (some of which are recognized in the Talmud) support Last Supper dates of either the thirteenth or fourteenth of Nisan. Some of these theories even suggest that the Passover lambs were sacrificed on two consecutive days in deference to the customs of these divers groups[l].

The limiting factor in all of these arguments is the lack of exact information concerning the festal rituals in the time of Christ. Philo’s statements are authoritative and contemporaneous, but want specific detail. Josephus lived during the Second Temple period, shortly after Christ. But he wrote after the destruction of the Temple, and his terminology seems very loose for a priest. The Talmud was written over a period of many years, beginning shortly after 70 AD, from the perspective of Judaism subsequent to the Second Temple. But the Talmud does not catalogue the differing opinions of Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees, and it does not provide a chronology for the establishment of the various rites. Thus it is often difficult to ascertain which Talmudic ordinances were in practice during the Second Temple, and whether these practices were universally observed by all sects.

But as long as methods exist of reconciling all of the known facts, we don’t need to know which of these theories is exactly correct. Each theory depends upon interpretation of events for which we lack exact knowledge. The timelines which place the Last Supper at the conclusion of the thirteenth are probably every bit as valid as those which place the Last Supper at the conclusion of the fourteenth; it’s just a question of which assumptions you make for the unknown factors. Our purpose is merely to show how the Gospel accounts fit together, and to demonstrate their historicity with regard to known Jewish and Roman customs of the first century AD. So we need only one viable method of reconciliation to pursue our goals. With this in mind, we will proceed on the basis that the Last Supper occurred “On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb”. Since Philo, Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud agree that the lamb was slain on the afternoon of the fourteenth, we will continue to assume that date, notwithstanding the possibility that other variants might have existed. Now John is the least specific of the Gospel writers concerning the time for the Last Supper, stating only:

¹It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. ²The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. -John 13:1-2

Exactly when is just before the Passover Feast, three days or setting the table? Originally written as a Greek manuscript with no chapters or verses, and little punctuation, could “It was just before the Passover Feast”, or the entirety of verse 1, be placed at the end of chapter 12? Without the detailed references provided by the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, this passage would be very difficult to date. On the evening of the Last Supper, (which was the fifteenth of Nisan once the sun set), Jesus went to the garden of Gethsemane for prayer[m]. There he was arrested[n], and subjected to a series of hearings and trials which lasted through the night. Sometime during the morning of the fifteenth (or the fourteenth on the alternate timeline), Jesus was condemned to die by crucifixion. The day of the crucifixion is referred to in all four Gospels as a day of preparation. Since this term bears on the chronology for the crucifixion, it behooves us to investigate its meaning and derivation.

The Greek noun translated “preparation” in reference to the day of crucifixion is παρασκευὴ or paraskeuē. Each of the Synoptic Gospels uses paraskeuē once to denote this specific day. The Gospel of John uses paraskeuē on three occasions to describe this particular day. The noun paraskeuē is used no where else in the Bible. The term originally evolved to describe the day before the weekly Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Since work was forbidden on the Sabbath, meals and other preparations were completed on the preceding Friday. The Modern Greek name for Friday is still παρασκευὴ. Whether this term would also apply to a preparation day prior to a Jewish feast day is debated. The loose variants of terminology applied to the feast days in the first century further complicate issues. Finally, it seems evident that John in particular was offering an abridged version of the Jewish festivals to his gentile audience, in order to avoid the detailed explanations of Jewish religious traditions unnecessary for the practice of Christianity. Let us review all six cases where the word παρασκευὴ occurs in the Christian Bible:

(i.) On the day after the crucifixion, the chief priests approached Pilate to request a guard for Jesus’ tomb, “The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate” (Matthew 27:62). No indication is given that would lead anyone to think this was not preparation for the Sabbath.

(ii.) After Jesus’ death on the cross, “⁴²It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, ⁴³Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body” (Mark 15:42-43). Here, Mark tells us that this was indeed the preparation before a Sabbath.

(iii.) After Jesus’ death on the cross, late in the afternoon, “It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54). Luke confirms that this was the day before a Sabbath.

(iv.) On the morning of the crucifixion, shortly before Jesus was condemned, “It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
‘Here is your king,’ Pilate said to the Jews” (John 19:14). Does John mean that this was the preparation day of the Passover, when the lamb was slain? Or does he mean that this was a Friday (παρασκευὴ) that happened to fall in the week of Passover? If John is telling us that this is the preparation day for the Passover feast, this is the only passage in the Bible where παρασκευὴ is so used. When Jesus and his disciples discussed preparing the Passover for the Last Supper (see above), the word translated “prepare” on six occasions was ἑτοιμάζω (Matthew 26:17, 19; Mark 14:12, 16; Luke 22:8, 13). The most likely interpretation of this phrase is that John is speaking in loose terms to a gentile audience of the Friday (παρασκευὴ) that happened to fall in the week of Passover.

(v.) During the crucifixion, the ruling priests approached Pilate to hurry the executions so that they would not interfere with the festival rites, “Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down” (John 19:31). In this passage John concurs that the next day was a Sabbath. Technically speaking, the day after the Passover sacrifice, the fifteenth of Nisan is also a type of Sabbath. But John’s language is so vague compared to the explicit explanations given in the Synoptic accounts (see above) that it is hard to imagine that he was making such a technical point. Notice the reference to Jews rather than chief priests in this verse. Now the author of the fourth Gospel assures us that he was welcome in the house of the high priest (John 18:15), so he was well aware of the appropriate titles for offices of the Levitical priesthood. The fact that he calls these ruling priests Jews shows that John no longer identified himself as one of them. And referring to them as Jews offers additional proof that John was glossing over the technical nuances of Judaism as of little interest to his predominantly gentile audience.

(vi.) On the same day, after Jesus’ death, “Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there” (John 19:42). John would obviously not refer to the “Jewish” day of preparation if he was writing to a Jewish audience. If you are still having trouble seeing the looseness of expression in John’s Gospel, go back and compare these three passages to the explanations of festal observances given by Moses, Joshua, Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, and the Synoptic Gospels. Since all four Gospels use the word παρασκευὴ to describe this day and no other, and the Synoptic Gospels are most specific about celebrating the Last Supper Passover on the day the lamb was customarily sacrificed, and John’s various descriptions of the Jewish day of preparation of Passover Week where the next day was to be a special Sabbath seem clearly to be glossing over details unnecessary for a gentile audience, it seems most likely that Jesus was crucified on Friday, Nisan 15.

The only other reference by John to the timeline of the crucifixion occurred when “the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover” (John 18:28). A common interpretation based upon this and the passage previously discussed in John 19:14 is that the crucifixion occurred on the day on which the lambs were sacrificed for the single day of Passover. But consider John’s language on other occasions, “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover” (John 2:13), “one of the Jewish festivals” (John 5:1), “The Jewish Passover Feast was near” (John 6:4) and “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover” (John 11:55). None of the other Gospels ever refer to the “Jewish” Passover. John clearly did not expect his audience to have a deep understanding of the Jewish festival rites. And he never refers to any specifics of the feast. He never mentions sacrificing the lamb, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or the First Fruits Offering. If his purpose was to accurately designate the day of crucifixion in this fashion, all he had to say was “when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb” or “the day before the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread” to be as specific as the three Synoptic Gospels, (ancient testimony indicates that he possessed the Synoptic Gospels when writing the fourth Gospel).

We have observed multiple instances wherein Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus, and even the Talmud use the term “Passover” to refer the events of the entire week which technically includes Passover, The Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the First Fruits Offering. So do we really think that John, who was still explaining that these were Jewish festivals, who never refers to any ordinance of this festival week other than Passover and Sabbath, was more technically specific in his terminology that the Synoptic writers? A more reasonable suggestion for John’s assertion that the Jewish leaders… wanted to be able to eat the Passover is that there was another feast associated with the Passover Week, which fell on the fifteenth of Nisan. Going back to Moses, we know that:

⁶ On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. ⁷ On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. -Leviticus 23:6-7

In addition, Josephus told us:

The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. -Josephus, Antiquities, III, x, 5

So if the Jewish leaders wanted to eat this feast for the priest on the day of the sacred assembly, do we think that John would stop his Gospel to give a ten page tutorial on exactly how these events were related? Or would he more likely just say the priests wanted to eat a feast of the Passover season? This is the question that determines whether you believe that the crucifixion occurred on the fourteenth or the fifteenth of Nisan[o].

If you believe, after the preceding exercise, that John was definitely saying that the crucifixion took place on the fourteenth of Nisan; then you should investigate the various explanations for why Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover one day early. Understanding these theories will require some research, but it is an exercise not without rewards. The good news is that this interpretation opens up more days of the week for the crucifixion, since the “preparation” could loosely apply to the “Sabbath” of the fifteenth of Nisan, rather than the weekly Sabbath. This provides a great deal of latitude for those who are concerned over whether Jesus rose from the grave within three days, after three days, or on the third weekday after having been entombed[p]. In addition, several Talmudic passages that could possibly refer to Jesus of Nazareth describe his execution on the “Eve of Passover”[q].

9. The Timeline of the Crucifixion

Two Days before the Crucifixion

13 Nisan, Wednesday

(Or 12 Nisan, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday)

___________

Sunset_____

The Day before the Crucifixion

14 Nisan, Thursday

(Or 13 Nisan, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday)

* Passover/Last Supper is prepared during day (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13)

* Upper Room is Secured for Dinner

* Passover/Last Supper is begun as sun sets (Matthew 26:20-35; Mark 14:17-31; Luke 22:14-38; John 13:1-17:26)

____________

Sunset______

The Day of the Crucifixion

15 Nisan, Friday

(Or 14 Nisan, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday[r])

* Passover/Last Supper is finished

* Jesus and eleven disciples retire to the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives for prayer (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:40-46; John 18:1)

* Jesus is arrested (Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-11)

* Jesus spends the entire night in hearings and trials

- Preliminary Hearing before Annas, (who had been high priest from 6-15 AD, father-in-law to Joseph Caiaphas who was current high priest, still addressed as “high priest”, much as a retired General is still addressed as General) (John 18:12-23)

- Hearing before Joseph Caiaphas, (high priest from 18-36 AD), and trial before Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57-27:1; Mark 14:33-15:1; Luke 22:52-71; John 18:24-28)

- First Hearing before Pontius Pilate (Roman procurator of Judea from 26-36 AD) (Matthew 27:2-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-7; John 18:28-19:16)

- Hearing before Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, from the death of his father, Herod the Great, until 39 AD) (Luke 23:8-12)

- Final Hearing before Pilate; Condemned to die (Matthew 27:2-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:11-25; John 18:28-19:16)

* Jesus is Crucified (Matthew 27:31-44; Mark 15:20-32; Luke 23:26-43; John 19:16-27)

- Placed on cross at roughly 9:00 AM (our time)

- Darkness begins at noon and lasts until time of death

* Jesus’ Death and Burial (Matthew 27:45-61; Mark 15:33-47; Luke 23:44-56; John 19:28-42)

- Death at roughly 3:00 in afternoon (our time), earthquake, Temple veil rent, dead rise from graves

__________

Sunset____

***

***

***

The Following Sunday and Later Dates

*Many Eyewitness Accounts of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-20; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-21:25; Acts 1:1-11)

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®: Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

2.) Titus Flavius Josephus:

Works by this author published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted. Posthumous works may be copyrighted based on how long they have been published in certain countries and areas.

Citations are from the William Whiston translation published by Thompson & Thomas in 1901. (Whiston’s translation was originally completed in 1736). This version of Whiston is in the public domain and available as a .pdf file on Google books.

A better reading translation (still under copyright) is that of P. L. Maier, ed./trans., Josephus -The Essential Works , Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1994

Flavius Josephus at CCEL (Whiston Translation) http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Jerome, on Josephus (at CCEL) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xv.html

3.) Philo of Alexandria:

Works by this author published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted. Posthumous works may be copyrighted based on how long they have been published in certain countries and areas.

Philo at EarlyJewishWritings (C.D. Yonge Translation) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

Philo at WikiSource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Philo

Jerome, on Philo (at CCEL) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xiii.html

Jerome, on Philo (at WikiSource) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_III/Lives_of_Illustrious_Men/Jerome/Philo_Judaeus

4.) Babylonian Talmud:

I normally use Jacob Nuesner’s translation for Talmudic references, but I have not yet obtained permissions to reproduce his text. The citations in this article are from Michael L. Rodkinson’s translation (incomplete) which is in the public domain. I referred each citation to the Nuesner and Soncino translations to confirm applicability.

The Babylonian Talmud at SacredTexts (Michael L. Rodkinson Translation) http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

[b] See also Exodus 12:1-51; Numbers 9:1-14; Deuteronomy 16:1-8

[c] See also II Kings 23:21-23; II Chronicles 30:1-27; 35:1-19; Ezra 6:19-22; Ezekiel 45:21-24

[d] There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Caius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Caius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Caius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Caius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Caius’s words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book XVIII, viii, 1.

See also Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, XLIV (349).

[e] 256,500 lambs were slain in two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00 on the afternoon of the fourteenth, to provide for 2,700,200 people. This record was compiled at the request of Cestius Gallus, Roman Governor of Syria. Josephus also mentions that when Cestius visited Jerusalem upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread, the people came about him not fewer in number than three millions (Wars, II, xiv, 3). This may or may not be the same occasion.

[f] Other instances of this usage by Josephus include: Ant., XVII, ix, 3; and Wars II, i, 3)

[g] I am very much indebted to Dr. S. Safrai for this insight into the difference of opinion between Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the offering of First Fruits. Please refer to pp 892-893 of Chapter Seventeen, The Temple, in The Jewish People in the First Century, S. Safrai and M.Stern.

[h] Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1; John 12:1

[i] It certainly seems from the account of the first Passover (Exodus 12:1-50) that the Israelites left Egypt on the same day that the firstborn was slain (v 50), else why did they not have time to leaven their bread (v 29-39)? And Numbers 33:3 indicates “The Israelites set out from Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after the Passover.” If the Israelites left on the fifteenth, then the firstborn was slain at midnight of the fifteenth, and Passover occurred at the sunset separating the fourteenth from the fifteenth. This would support the Jewish tradition.

[j] During Moses’ second celebration of Passover in Numbers 9:1-13, “some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body” (v 6). Moses asked the LORD what should be done in these cases, and a permanent dispensation was granted that those who are unclean or on a journey during the time of Passover may “celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight.” Following this precedent, it is argued that the LORD granted his Son dispensation to celebrate Passover a day early, rather than a month later. Obviously this type of theological interpretation is driven by factors outside the scope of our study, and may be neither proven nor disproved with the available evidence.

[k] The Talmud specifically stipulates that Passover may not fall on a Friday (Sanhedrin 13B), and this is considered in the process of intercalating leap months. But the logic for argument (3.) is that Passover was celebrated a day early at the time of Christ, prior to the Talmudic ruling that eliminated the conflict. The Talmud also claims that Hillel the Elder (30 BC – 10 AD) ruled that the Passover sacrifice overrides the weekly Sabbath restriction (T. Pesahim 4:1-2; T. B. Pesahim 66a-b). But this ruling was attributed to Hillel long after his passing. Samaritan and Karaite tradition does not suspend Sabbath restrictions for the Passover.

[l] For an interesting overview of many of these proposals the reader is referred to Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, The Problem of The Last Supper, pp 76-90, Zondervan, 1978

[m] Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1

[n] Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-11

[o] No matter which timeline you choose, the trial described by the Gospel accounts was not in compliance with standard Jewish law.

[p] Matthew 12:38-40; 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:39-40, 62-64; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29-30; Luke 9:22; 18;33; 24:6-7, 21, 46; John 2:19-22; Acts 10:40; I Corinthians 15:4

[q] Sanhedrin 43a, 67a

[r] Whether Passover could have been held on Friday depends upon whether the Talmudic restriction was already in force at the time of Christ. It also depends on whether the Passover observance was moved to avoid interference with the day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath, as has been proposed.

It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment…

We are all going to die. We become aware of our mortality at a tender age, and we are taught by society to accept this eventuality as the price of life. Well adjusted individuals reconcile themselves to death as a part of their reality.

But instinctively we know that death is our enemy. And no healthy person wants to die.

So we wax philosophic and derive comfort from the axiom that “death is a part of life… (heavy sigh)” – Which it is not. Death is the cessation of life; this precious life being the gift of God.

Many of us believe that if the way we live our life has meaning, Death will seem less bitter at the end. This attitude is both admirable and constructive. The death which follows is still not good. But by all means put the best face on it.

So we live our lives the best that we can, and try to keep our minds off of the sudden stop at the end. We work hard to fill our lives with things, or to pass down to our children. Some may party and chase women or men to fill empty hours with meaning. Or if we are noble, we fill our lives with service. Even so, there is not much that we wouldn’t do to avoid death. But what CAN we do?

Medical science may someday be able to prolong or restore life. Or maybe not. I’m not certain that we even understand the force that we call life. What substance inhabits living tissue which causes it to differ from the dead? I sincerely hope that there are medical professionals who are hot on the trail. But I don’t expect a breakthrough this week. And the fate of men who live a thousand years from now is scant comfort to me.

Literature is replete with examples of man somehow achieving immortality. Mary Shelley introduces us to a world in which science has unlocked the mystery of life. Vampire stories reveal a race of once-men who will live forever, (although usually at the expense of their immortal souls.) Even Shangra La’s promise of a few hundred years seems hopeful to those of us doomed to a life of three score and ten. These stories illustrate our hopes and desires. But they are just stories.

In the real world, where can we turn? A plethora of religions claims to provide insight to an afterlife. An Afterlife! What a wonderful idea if it exists! If dying is just a doorway to a new and possibly better existence, then Death has lost its sting. All that is necessary then is to determine which belief system is correct, and to adhere to that faith. A correct choice guarantees an afterlife in a far better state. Of course a wrong choice might have dire consequences.

A prevalent view today is that all paths lead to God, that one religion is as good as another as long as you are sincere and a “good” person. If you are certain of this view, you may stop reading now. You have nothing left to learn, and your ascent to a positive afterlife is guaranteed no matter what you believe. In the afterlife you may chide me about my vain and fruitless search for the one true path to God. I have noticed though, that those who adhere to this doctrine don’t really believe in anything with certainty. They appear to be just hoping for the best.

These include the “modernists” who first explain away historical written records of the supernatural in terms of the limited understanding of primitive writers, and then use the “lack” of the miraculous to “prove” the lack of the Divine. As well as the “New Agers” who believe that it is arrogant and boorish to claim that your path is any better than the one that they just thought up. Like Aristotle they have no need to test their hypotheses. If it seems right in their head it must be right. It never occurs to them that a true God might just set His own perfect standard for reasons not totally comprehensible to we the finite.

And the testimony of the various religions contradicts this view as well. Many diverse religions claim exclusive access to God. Obviously some are mistaken.

So how do we “test” our hypothesis? How do we make certain that we are on the path to God without having already died? (Which may be too late?) The answer is simple: Just find a man who has overcome Death, and follow His leadership.

To find this man we must commit ourselves to the historical record. Who remembers the splendor of the Tutankhamen exhibits which toured the USA in the late 1970′s? King Tut was an important historical figure. These exhibits from his tomb indicate that Death overcame him. Likewise, a little research provides insight into the deaths of Gaius Julius Caesar, Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, Richard Coeur de Lion, Saladin, Zhu Yuanzhang and most other historical figures. History usually tells us how a famous person died. The written record also indicates that they tend to remain dead.