The date of the death of Jesus: further reflections.

• Author: Lasker, Daniel J.

In his thought-provoking and convincing article, "The Date of Death of Jesus of Nazareth" (JAOS 122 [2002]: 466-80), Leo Depuydt argues that the most plausible date for the crucifixion is 18 March, 29 C.E. This date was generally accepted until the beginning of the twentieth century, at which time it came under attack on the basis of the assumed impossibility that the first day of a Hebrew month could begin before the sighting of the first crescent. (1) Since the Friday of the crucifixion allegedly fell on or about the full moon, and since Nisan can fall in either March or April, it follows that, if the crucifixion was in 29 C.E., it occurred on either 18 March or 15 April. Furthermore, since the Gospels are unclear as to whether the crucifixion was on 14 Nisan or 15 Nisan, if the crucifixion was in 29 C.E., then the first day of Nisan that year could have been 4 March, 5 March, 1 April, or 2 April. Comparing the lunar conjunction with first-crescent visibility, and assuming that the first day of the month cannot precede first-crescent visibility, it would follow that none of those dates could have been 1 Nisan. Therefore, it was concluded that the crucifixion could not have been in the previously accepted year of 29 C.E. Depuydt argues that the assumption that first-crescent visibility must precede the first day of the lunar month is false, and that therefore 29 C.E. remains a possible year of the crucifixion. Indeed, in light of other sources, 29 C.E. would be the most plausible year, as was previously thought. Furthermore, preference is given to Friday, 18 March, as the actual date of Jesus' death. This note is intended to strengthen Depuydt's argumentation, while correcting some inaccuracies which have crept into his discussion.

It should be said at the outset that any calculation of the date of the crucifixion relies on a large number of unproven, and presumably unprovable, assumptions. First, one must accept the historicity of the person of Jesus, and the Gospel account of the crucifixion (both the fact of the crucifixion and its having taken place on a Friday, either the first day of Passover [the Synoptic Gospels] or the eve of Passover [John]). (2) Second, there is an assumption that one can reconstruct the calendar in use in Jerusalem in the first century C.E. This reconstruction is usually done on the basis of rabbinic literature which, in its written form, is much later than the time of Jesus. Although most people assume that the calendar employed in early first-century Jerusalem was luni-solar, similar to the standard Jewish calculated calendar in use today, there is no way of knowing for sure which calendar was in use at the time. Some contemporary Jewish sources, e.g., the Book of Jubilees and the Dead Sea Scrolls, work with a solar calendar quite different than the normative rabbinic one. (3) Furthermore, even though rabbinic literature indicates that the Second Temple calendar was based on observation, there were apparently some constraints that limited unrestricted use of observation. It is also difficult to distinguish between rabbinic discussions of the calendar which are theoretical and actual records of calendrical practice. Thus, all one can do is state that if the crucifixion story is true, and if the Jerusalem calendar at the time was similar to later rabbinic calendars, one can attempt to reconstruct the date that seems to underlie the New Testament narrative.

Depuydt concludes that the crucifixion occurred on Friday, 14 Nisan/18 March 29...