Loading...Finally, a scientific dating of Jesus’ death. I was trolling through old posts and came across this one. Whoa! Really?
******************************
Geologists claim now that they have established the date of Jesus’ death. It was April 3, 33 CE. Here was the headline:
Jesus ‘died on Friday, April 3, 33AD’, claim researchers, who tie earthquake data with the gospels to find the date
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149750/Jesus-died-Friday-April-3-33AD-claim-researchers-tie-earthquake-data-gospels-date.html
For those who don’t know, the date of Jesus’ death has long been in dispute. The reality is, we are not sure when Jesus was executed (i.e., what year). It almost certainly happened during a Passover feast during the reign of Pontius Pilate as the Prefect of Judea. His rule lasted between 26-36 CE. All of our early Gospel accounts agree that the crucifixion happened on a Friday. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, this Friday was the day after the Passover meal was eaten and so, technically, it was still “Passover Day (see Mark 14:12). According to John the Friday was the day before it was eaten – on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14).
But which year was it?
Scholars have had a number of ways of trying to calculate it.
- Which of those years (26-36 CE) did Passover fall on a Friday, for example? Answer: apparently none! That’s a problem, obviously.
- How does establishing Paul’s chronology help? Answer: it narrows it down to probably 33 CE or earlier; probably sometime between 29 and 33 CE, since Paul almost certainly converted around 36 CE or so — if you work out when he did what when based on his off-the-cuff remarks — and that had to be 3 or 4 yours after Jesus’ death.
- And…. Well now there is a new theory.
In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus dies, an earthquake hits (Matthew 27:51). And so, if, in theory, one could figure out when an earthquake shook Judea, we could know what year the crucifixion took place. It all makes sense! (Well, at first….)
German geologist Jeffery Williams and his colleagues at the German Research Center for Geophysics have determined that there was a significant earthquake in Judea some 60 years earlier, in 31 BCE; and another one that appears to have come right around the time of the reign of Pontius Pilate. They have concluded, putting all the evidence together, that the earthquake came on April 3, 33 CE, at the time of Jesus’ death. See the link above.
What is one to make of all this? The first thing to be said is
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
that you should always be cautious when a scientist who is not trained in biblical studies starts making pronouncements about the Bible. It’s almost as bad as when a Bible scholar starts making pronouncements about science! (I’ve known a few who have; and there are always, of course, the creationists). The problems with this geological approach to establishing the historicity of a biblical account are wide and deep.
To begin with, Matthew is the only Gospel that mentions an earthquake. Why would that be, if there really was an earthquake? Why would Mark, Luke, and John forget or neglect to mention that part? It would seem to be a supernatural sign that something significant was happening on earth at the moment – so significant that the earth began to quake! Wouldn’t the others mention it, if it was known to have happened?
It should be noted that the earthquake in Matthew goes hand in hand with the “darkness” that came over the land – itself obviously a symbolic statement that the hour of darkness had come and the light (of the world) was being extinguished. In other words, these well-meaning scientists have taken a highly symbolic rendering of Jesus’ death and read it literalistically. This can be especially seen in Matthew’s account in particular, the only one that mentions the quake. It also indicates that the veil of the temple was ripped in half from top to bottom; that the graves in Jerusalem were opened up; that the corpses in those graves came back to life and appeared to many in Jerusalem; and that the centurion seeing the quake confessed that “Truly this was the Son of God.”
Each of these events is to be understood as symbolic, not as actual events recorded literally by someone who was there to see them happen. If the curtain in the Temple was in fact ripped in half at this moment, it is surprising that there is no mention of any such thing in any source written in later times, for example, in the Jewish authors Philo and Josephus (who mentions the temple veil, and says nothing about it having to be repaired!). The tearing of the curtain shows – symbolically – that the God who before now had been removed from the people in his own place, the Holy of Holies in the Temple, was now fully accessible to everyone through the death of Jesus.
The bizarre story of the raised corpses is also not mentioned in any other source (again, this would be a point that Christian authors would have wanted to emphasize, had they known about it). It too is symbolic: Jesus’ death is the beginning of the resurrection of the dead. When he returns in judgment, according to Christian reckoning, he will complete the job.
Nor is the confession of the Centurion a literal event. There is no reliable record of pagans converting to believe in Jesus at the moment he was killed. That was to come later. But this “event” narrated in Matthew prepares the way. For this Gospel, it is not the Jewish leaders or the Jewish people as a whole who repent – or even a Jewish person. It is a Gentile, who recognizes by the signs attendant on Jesus’ death that he really is the son of God, not despite the fact he was killed by his enemies, but precisely because he was killed. He is the suffering messiah.
The earthquake too is a symbolic statement, not a literal historical event. When Jesus died, the entire cosmos was thrown into upheaval. The sun went dark, and the earth trembled. The Son of God fulfilled his destiny, an awful death at the hands of his enemies (for Matthew), the Jewish leaders. The world itself could not help but groan and grumble, as the rocks split apart, the sun went dark, the dead were raised, and the earth quaked.
This is not a literal account that can help us date the death of Jesus; it is a symbolic statement in which Matthew is trying to convey his theology. Dating Jesus’ death on the basis of this kind of scientific datum is to misread and misinterpret the text. And that is the same thing as misusing and even abusing the text.
Prof Ehrman,
The bit about the corpses returning to life appears quite plausible to me given the Jewish expectation of the resurrection of the dead. What then will be your strongest argument that the author did not mean this literally given the milieu and supernatural understanding of the world people at the time most likely had?
Thank you.
Actually I have no trouble imagining that the author of Matthew himself thought it literally happened. But that doesn’t mean it happened, df course, and therefore you can’t date Jesus’ death by it. I’d also say, though, that the story absolutely functions metaphorically in the narrative even if the authr believed it happened, and that must mean that we can’t know whether he believed it happened or not (since the story itself doesn’t indicate if he did and he could have included it in either event, whether he believed it or not). It certainly wsa first told to show the apocalyptic significance of the death of Jesus. It does seem weird in Matthew’s Gospel, though, since it would mean that Jesus was not the first to be raised…
So they dated the earthquake assuming the historical accuracy of the earthquake detail in Matthew? That seems to be the better description. It seemed they only had “hard” evidence that it occurred between 26-36 ce.
From a historical perspective, do you think it’s likely that Matthew knew of an oral tradition that tied an earthquake to the crucifixion? I could imagine in oral transmission someone recalled an earthquake and tied that event into the story.
I’m pretty sure it comes from an oral tradition (since Matthew seems unlikely to have invented the idea that people were raised from the dead before Jesus was); but that doesn’t mean the oral tradition began because someone know there really was an earthquake. It could have been a story that *claimed* there was an earthquake to heighten the significance of jesus’ death.
I hesitate to ask this question because I can’t but my hands on my original source, but I remember reading something by John Shelby Spong where he made the case that Jesus probably died during the festival of booths instead of Passover. Have you heard of that theory, and if so, what do you think of it?
I hesitate to ask this question because I can’t put my hands on my original source, but I remember reading something by John Shelby Spong where he made the case that Jesus probably died during the festival of booths instead of Passover. Have you heard of that theory, and if so, what do you think of it?
Yes, others have argued that, usually on the basis of Palm Sunday, since the use of palms to build the booths makes sense of the Triumphal Entry, and there’s nothing corresponding to it for passover.
Reminds me of the attempts to determine what celestial event was associated with the Star of Bethlehem, another invention of Matthew that doesn’t make any sense when examined carefully. But is there a Passover around that time that fell on a Thursday? Some think the crucifixion was on a Thursday.
Ah, I don’t think so. But I haven’t looked into that bit of it. I don’t know of people who think the crucifixion was Thursday, since all the Gospels indicate he was crucified the day before Sabbath; the dispute I know about is whether Passover on Sabbath or the day before Sabbath. disabledupes{d1189ab7740f737aa1a927411b0490eb}disabledupes
James Tabor would be one scholar who thinks it could have been a Thursday. https://jamestabor.com/jesus-died-on-a-thursday-not-a-friday/
I’m trying to approximate the latest possible decade when God’s kingdom could have come no later than when Jesus predicted it would, ie, either during the lifetime of his own generation or simply of those alive at the same time as Jesus—I can’t recall offhand which time frame Jesus used, possibly both in different places.
If the latter, it seems like, theoretically, it could have been as late as the third or fourth decade of the second century.
Is there a scholarly consensus on this?
But aren’t there multiple and much earlier NT indications that the early Christians were already trying to reinterpret Jesus’s prediction, eg, Luke’s gospel?
Maybe early Christians understood the prediction to be that it would happen before the death of everyone who was an eyewitness or in the original group of his followers?
Yup, completely depends on what “generation” means. For most people, it means the average time between a person’s birth and the time of their first child — so, in antiquity, 20-25 years on average? But in the Bible it is famously thought of as 40 years. So, if Jesus said this, in say 29 CE, it would be by 69 CE or so.
If Jesus was around 30 when he died and if anyone born within the next 10 years would be part of his generation and if it was theoretically possible for someone to live 100 years, wouldn’t that make the arrival of God’s kingdom to be approximately no later than the fourth or even the fifth decade of the second century?
Maybe I’m not looking at this right. It’s confusing.
He is saying this to mature men — within *this* generation. A generation is not the amount of time a person can live; it is the time between a person’s birth and the birth of their children. (Which is why we say “I don’t understand this generation”)
Who is the earliest “proto-orthodox” Christian author to “fully” reinterpret the historical Jesus’s prediction of when God’s kingdom would come? And what was the approximate date of that reinterpretation?
Would it be the author of John’s gospel in the 90s?
Luke already intimates that Jesus did not mean in *his* generation but in Luke’s own — that God had planned for the mission of Jesus’ followers to spread the gospel to the end of the earth before the end happened. John doesn’t think any kind of end is *going* to happen; he has almost thoroughly deapocalypticized the message.
If there was no possible Friday when Jesus could have been crucified in the reign of Pontius Pilate, do scholars think that casts doubt on the day of the week it happened, or that it was not associated with Passover at all?
The evidence is so strong that it was around the Passover, or rather, on it, that it’s not much doubted that it was a Friday. All the traditions indicate it was the day before Sabbath (hence his quick burial) and even Paul talks about him as the Passover who has been sacrificed for us.
Okay now I’m confused:
“The evidence is so strong that it was around the Passover, or rather, on it, that it’s not much doubted that it was a Friday”
How does the evidence that it was on Passover lead to the conclusion that it was on a Friday?
Or is your point that the evidence for each of these two bits of data is so strong that people doubt the conclusion, mentioned in the article, that there was no Friday Passover in those years?
As to the evidence of it being on Passover: I thought you agreed that Jn places the crucifixion on the day of preparation for passover? Wouldn’t that open a whole new set of possible dates? (I realize Jn had theological reason to choose that day, but Mark had reason to choose passover day, too.)
And as to the evidence for it being on Friday: I thought you denied that Jesus was buried by his disciples; If you don’t think the disciples buried Jesus, wouldn’t you tend to reject the detail about them rushing to bury him before the Sabbath as a mere plot device, and thus as of no use for nailing down a reliable chronology?
Yeah, sorry: I mispoke. I think the evidence is very clear that Jesus was crucified on or near the Passover feast. And in fact all of the sources that speak about the matter do locate the death on a Friday. So that’s all the evidence. But if I have to choose, I’d say the Passover references is by far the stronger. If there is no Friday available for a Passover, then either he was killed *near* the time of Passover or it was not a Friday. I lean toward the latter, though I don’t think there’s any way to know, since Friday makes sense of the Xns wanting the resurrection to fulfill Scripture: Dies Friday, needs a hasty burial because Sabbath is dawning, women go to finish the task on Sunday morning, and find that he is raised, in fulfillment of Hosea 6:2.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you make of the quote in Matthew 12:40?
(NRSVUE)
Obviously if he died on Friday and was raised on Sunday, that is fewer than three days and three nights.
We always used to hear that in Jewish reckoning any part of a day counted as a full 24 hour day. But I dn’t know if that’s true or not. My sense is that originally the followers of Jesus said it happened on the third day in fulfillment of Hosea 6:2, but that later when Jonah got brought into the picture they started saying three days and three nights, even though technically that doesn’t at all work, since really there was only one full day and night (Saturday).
What is the evidence that the historical Jesus was likely crucified around Passover? I get that this is well established in the tradition, but so are many things that probably didn’t happen. I think there would be obvious theological motivation to create a story of him being killed around Passover. Since Jesus was from Galilee, it makes sense he would have been in Jerusalem for an occasion. Why not another festival, as others have suggested?
It’s in all the Gospels and their sources and in multiple passages; Paul refers to it even earlier in 1 Cor. 5:7; it would not have been made up by first century Jews to show that Jesus was sacrificed as an atonement like the Passover lambs, since the lamb was not an atoning sacrifice; it makes sense of the trip to Jerusalem in the first place, since that would be when Jesus could expect the largest crowds to hear his message, since it was the largest festival; and no other festival is mentioned. So I think it’s pretty clear it happened on or around Passover.
Interesting conversation. It seems to me that the strong evidence is that the authors of the synoptics, and John, place it on Thursday or Friday (depending on whether or not Nisan 14 fell on Thursday or Friday, with the synoptics favoring Friday). The actual history is arguably more uncertain. Since, like the weekly sabbath, no work was permitted on Nisan 15, the preparation for both the weekly sabbath and Nisan 15 would have to take place on the same day when Nisan 15 fell on the weekly sabbath or the day before it. In those two cases the preparation day for the weekly sabbath and the preparation day for Passover day are the same day (Nisan 14). The next day (Passover day Nisan 15) is the day the angel of death passed over the Israelis and killed the Egyptian first born. Thursday is the preparation day for the weekly sabbath when Nisan 15 falls on a Friday (since no work is allowed on Nisan 15). The authors of the synoptics wrongly place the crucifixion of Jesus on Nisan 15 because they didn’t understand the Passover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus#Scholarly_debate_on_the_hour,_day,_and_year_of_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Chronology
I found an article about that theory last week while I was contemplating natural events of the first century that are omitted from the NT. I was trying to come up with a topic worthy of an undergrad thesis like that which you wrote about. There was Halley’s comet (perhaps 14AD), the Pompeii earthquake (62AD) and the Pompeii volcanic eruption (79AD). Does it tell us anything that the Bible foretells natural events and disasters but seemingly records more that didn’t happen than did? Besides the comet, earthquake and volcano that I mentioned, were there other natural events in the first century like supernovae, meteors, eclipses, famines, plagues, floods, droughts, etc that seem to be worthy of mention but are absent from the NT?
I’d say that because the Bible doesn’t mention something does not mean a whole lot — since it doesn’t mention most things that happened in history (if that’s what you’re asking). But yes, things it does mention that didn’t happen are a lot more important! The trick is *proving* they didn’t happen.
“Which of those years (26-36 CE) did Passover fall on a Friday, for example? Answer: apparently none!”
Very interesting! So at least one among three bits of history is wrong:
(a) Jesus was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate as the Prefect of Judea.
(b) Jesus was crucified on a Friday.
(c) Jesus was crucifies during Passover.
Given that (c) has obvious theological appeal and (a) and (b) do not (do they??), I would guess (c) is wrong. Perhaps Jesus was crucified a couple of days before or after, and the narrative was slightly changed to make it more dramatic?
I too wonder about the Festival of Booths ( Sukkot). John relates that the crowd went to meet Jesus waving palm branches. Palm branches were available in Jerusalem only in Sukkot. They were brought in from warmer climates in large quantities for Sukkot, not for Passover.
To this day, the synagogue ritual on Sukkot consists of the waving of palm branches ( lullav, in Hebrew) and other plants, circling the temple and singing
” Hoshea-nah” (not a jubilant exclamation but a genuine appeal for God’s help: Save us!).This is followed by ” Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” ( the Benedictus of the Mass). Again, this is the ritual of Tabernacles, not of Passover.
The question is why would the holidays become confused. What happened?
Another question: was Jesus meant to be resurrected ” on the third day” or after three full days, as in Jonah, which Jesus mentioned as the clue of what would happen in his future?
The difference is that ” on the third day” , counting from Friday yields only two full days in the tomb. For Jonah’s three full days, Jesus would have had to have been crucified on Thursday.(!)
What happened wsa that the Gospel writers were not very familiar with Jewish holidays! (Our first writer, Mark, I would say was most likely not Jewish; his comments “all Jews” washing their hands before meals in ch. 7 was simply not true). It originally must have been “on the third day” (based on Hos. 6:2); and that actuallyl gives him one full day in the tomb: Friday later afternoon, all day Saturday, and teh very beginning of Sunday morning.
Okay. I understand. What is the explanation for the calendar discrepancy? That we dated the first century incorrectly (I understand there are several calendar renderings to consider) and there was a Friday when the crucifixion happened, or that it wasn’t during the reign of Pontius Pilate? It is just that I had not read before about the unavailability of the day of the week that you mention in your post.
It was certainly during the time of PP; I’m pretty sure it must have been a Passover, or at least around the *time* of Passover. You could imagine the “Friday” coming about to explain a hurried burial and a resurrection on the 3rd day in fulfillment of Hos. 6:2.
What effect if any did the destruction of the Second Temple and crushing defeat of the Jewish Revolt around 72 CE have on the de-apocalypticizing of Christianity as reflected in the NT?
They seem like the kind of extreme events that could have radically heightened expectations of the coming of God’s kingdom. And the timing-around the end of Jesus’s generation which he predicted was the latest the Kingdom would come-could also have raised expectations. The gospels too talk about the Temple’s destruction.
But these events, without the Kingdom’s arrival soon afterward, might well have been devastating to apocalyptic expectations.
Is there reason to think that Mark and Matthew, which include strong apocalyptic expectations, were authored prior to these events, and Luke, which began the de-apocalypticizing process, came afterward? I’m not sure how the dating of these gospels lines up with these events.
My sense is that it had a kind of polarizing effect, as often happens in situations like this. Some Christians began to realize that the apoclayptic visions wasn’t going to come true (since it didn’t in 70); others doubled down and became even *more* apocalytpic. But no, Mark is almost always dated just after the event and Matthew about 10-15 years later. Matthew has a heightened view; Luke has begun to de-apocalypticize.
You mention that no Passover occurred on a Friday in the years in question. A good while back–40 years or so–I read an article speculating that Jesus could have been crucified on a Thursday. The need to take him down at sunset, the Bible says, was due to the beginning of the sabbath, but this could have been referring to the Passover, to which sabbath rules would apply. This would then be followed by the normal weekly sabbath beginning Friday evening. This would make his time in the grave a lot closer to the “three days and three nights” than the usual interpretation. And it might solve the problem of no Friday Passovers. Is this at all feasible?
Interesting idea. I haven’t ever looked into it, but on the surface it seems worth thinking about. But I think the three days and nights thing is based on a reading of Hosea 3:2 (or the book of Jonah), not a historical recollection.
“Which of those years (26-36 CE) did Passover fall on a Friday, for example? Answer: apparently none! That’s a problem, obviously”
In your opinion, what is particularly significant regarding that problem? Jesus being crucified during the time Pilate was prefect is supposed to be one of the most certain details of Jesus life. Could even that be in doubt? Why not, who’s to say Tacitus didn’t get that detail from an oral tradition that was inaccurate? As another blogger noted, it’s been suggested that Jesus died during another festival. Given the symbolism that Jesus is now the lamb to be slaughtered, I could see the motivation to create a story that he died at Passover, whether that was a deliberate change or a detail that needed to be invented.
It’s virtually certain Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. And that it was around Passover. So I’m not sure — I suppose it’s a question of whether it was a Friday. One can see how that detail might sneak in, to explain the hurried burial at sundown and the empty tomb “on the third day”
Regardless of which writings may have inspired the phrase, it seems unlikely that they would have been dragged in if they didn’t seem to fit. Even illiterate first century peasants could do that much math. In a two-sabbath scenario, it would have made more sense. Here’s an article from 2003 (the idea’s been around longer; I’d have read about it in the 1970s). https://gracethrufaith.com/topical-studies/holidays-and-holy-days/solving-the-three-day-three-night-mystery/
Add this to to mix.
. Passover is called a High Sabbath regardless of what day it falls on. (So are the other six Holy Days). The Gospel of John called it a High Sabbath. There is no mention in the scriptures that the day was a Friday.
John the Baptist started his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Considering that Tiberius was “co-regent” about 10-11 CE, Jesus would have been baptized about 26 CE. He was born 4 BCE (When Herod died) or earlier
I believe that the crucifixion occurred in 30 CE. Check the date of the Passover in 30 CE: Thursday. Now three days and three nights in the grave works. ( There is no passage that says when Jesus rose, only when the grave was visited on Sunday morning after he arose.
literally.
I find it a stretch to interpret the three days and three nights, the sign of Jonah, as anything but literal.
Where have you learned that Jewish festivals in antiquity were called a High Sabbath?
Dr. Ehrman,
Will you still keep 30 CE as the year for Jesus’ death, or do you think the evidence leans stronger for 33 CE?
I don’t know.
I want to ask this question though it is off topic. It is about “hell” and “gehenna”. Jesus is said to have descended into hell between his death and resurrection. Could that simply have come from the possibility that his body, as that of a supposed criminal, was thrown into the literal gehenna outside Jerusalem? Could the whole tomb thing have been a fabrication to placate his followers who would have been devastated if he didn’t have a proper burial? (It would certainly explain the “empty tomb”.) Could people being able to visit his burial place have been so important that one was invented. The stone was supposed to hide the truth, but alas it was unbalanced and rolled away unexpectedly. (Maybe in one of the earthquake aftershocks!) Just speculating!
You don’t find that statement in the New Testament or early Christian sources. I have a chapter discussing its history in my most recent book, Journeys to Heaven and Hell. Maybe I should blog about it more.
Yes. I just wondered if the tradition arose because his body was really buried in gehenna, rather than because of any new testament reference.
The later doctrine was certainly builty on NT references; , an dwhen the doctrine came about most peope whould not have known anything about gehenna as a valley outside of Jerusalem. It sounds like you might find my chapter helpful.
Dr. Ehrman,
What are your thoughts on Phlegon and Pliny the Elder that some use to tie these events to history? For reference, here is the info/quotes I am referring to:
“Phlegon stated that in the 19th year of Tiberius (as Eustathius Antiochus noted in Hexaemeron) and the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (that is 33 AD), the following events took place… ‘There was a large and most famous eclipse that had ever occurred. The day was so turned into night at the sixth hour (noon), that the stars were seen. Also, an earthquake in Bithynia destroyed many houses in the city of Nicaea’.” (Annals of the World, paragraphs 6502 & 6503).
Here is the link to the entire works of Ussher’s Annals of the World – see paragraph 6479 for the events surrounding the crucifixion. http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/Usher.pdf
In addition, Pliny the Elder, a first-century Roman historian and naturalist, wrote that
“[t]he largest earthquake happened in the principate of Tiberius Caesar when twelve cities in Asia Minor were razed to the ground in one night” (Pliny’s Natural History 38).
We don’t have Phleon’s writings in which this is quoted, do we? I think he is quoted in Origen in the early third century and Eusebius in the 4th, in reference to an earthquake in Asia Minor (not in jerusalem) and an eclipse. It’s not clear if Eusebius got his quotation from Origen. As you may know, Ussher (author of the Annals of the world) was the erudite 17th century bishop who established that the world was created in 4004 BCE….