The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ

By James D. Quiggle

The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ is a gospel harmony and exposition of the four gospels from two days before Christ’s final Passover celebration through his Ascension into heaven.

The gospel harmony is in the form of a combined narrative, using my translations of the four gospels. The harmony combines Matthew 26:1–28:20; Mark 14:1–16:20; Luke 22:1–24:53; and John 12:1–21:25 into a continuous, chronologically arranged narrative of the events and discourses. The exposition is based on my published commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and John, plus Luke’s contribution to the gospel narratives, presenting a detailed explanation of the scriptures in the harmony.

Combining the Scriptures into a continuous narrative at once reveals the agreement of the gospels. The authenticity, accuracy, and credibility of the four reports of the life of Christ is demonstrated. Many issues are resolved and insights gained. Among these are the Passover problem in John 18:28, Peter’s two sets of three denials, and Christ’s two scourgings by Pilate. Mark 16:9–20 is shown to harmonize with the reports of the other gospels. The problem of the supper at Bethany, reported on different days by John and the Synoptics, is resolved. A discussion of the relationship between ancient and modern days and dates precede the harmony, and two appendices discuss Peter’s denials and Mark’s ending.

The harmony and exposition are structured in a day by day format, from Nisan 13 to Iyar 27 (April 1–May 17, AD 33). Every event and every discourse is included in the harmony and explained in the exposition. The Bible student will gain a new appreciation of the Person and work of Jesus the Christ.

• Language: English
• Publisher: James D. Quiggle
• Release date: Aug 5, 2019
• ISBN: 9780463317877

James D. Quiggle

James D. Quiggle was born in 1952 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He grew up in Kansas and the Texas Panhandle. In the early 1970s he joined the United States Air Force. At his first permanent assignment in Indian Springs, Nevada in a small Baptist church, the pastor introduced him to Jesus and soon after he was saved. Over the next ten years those he met in churches from the East Coast to the West Coast, mature Christian men, poured themselves into mentoring him. In the 1970s he was gifted with the Scofield Bible Course from Moody Bible Institute. As he completed his studies his spiritual gift of teaching became even more apparent. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Bethany Bible College during the 1980s while still in the Air Force. Between 2006–2008, after his career in the Air Force and with his children grown up, he decided to continue his education. He enrolled in Bethany Divinity College and Seminary and earned a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theological Studies.As an extension of his spiritual gift of teaching, he was prompted by the Holy Spirit to begin writing books. James Quiggle is now a Christian author with over fifty commentaries on Bible books and doctrines. He is an editor for the Evangelical Dispensational Quarterly Journal published by Scofield Biblical Institute and Theological Seminary.He continues to write and has a vibrant teaching ministry through social media.

Book preview

Preface

The plan of this book is as follows.

A gospel harmony in the form of a combined narrative using my translations of the four gospels, from two days before the Passover through the Ascension.

A detailed exposition of the scriptures used in the combined narrative.

Four discussions precede the combined narrative.

A brief discussion of the authenticity, accuracy, and credibility of the New Testament documents.

An explanation of the relationship between ancient and modern days and dates.

The plan of the combined narrative is then discussed.

Then, to set the proper context for the beginning of the combined narrative, I discuss the harmonization of the Bethany supper.

The exposition of the combined narrative is followed by two appendices harmonizing Peter’s denials, and reasons why Mark 16:9–20 is inspired Scripture.

Abbreviations

AD Anno Domini (In the year of the Lord [since Christ was born])

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ant. Antiquities of the Jews

BC Bello Christo (Before Christ [was born])

ca. about (an approximate date) (Latin: circa)

CE Current Era (year since Christ was born).

cf. compare (Latin: confer)

e.g. for example (Latin: exempli gratia)

etc. and so forth, and so on (Latin: et cetera)

GWT Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11–15)

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

Ibid in the same place (referring to the source cited in the previous entry) (Latin: ibidem)

i.e. that is (Latin: id est)

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JDQT TRANSLATION by James D. Quiggle

KJV King James Version

NASB95 New American Standard Bible 1995 edition.

NEB New English Bible

NICNT New International Commentary New Testament

NIV New International Version

NKJV New King James Version

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament completed ca. 130 BC)

n. note (referring to a footnote or endnote in the work cited)

m. Mishnah (followed by tractate name, e.g., m. Baba Metzia)

Song Song of Solomon

s. v. under the word (Latin: sub verbo)

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentary

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

v. verse

vv. verses

WSDNT Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament

Reliability of the New Testament Documents

What we read in the New Testament is, of course, only as valid as the authenticity of the New Testament manuscripts. How valid are the ancient New Testament documents? The answer involves two issues. One is the preservation of the autographs (the original writings), the other is the doctrine of inspiration.

Inspiration

The best explanation of the inspiration of the Bible comes from B. B Warfield. The definition is a little long, but it covers all aspects of the doctrine. Inspiration is ‘God’s work of superintendence by which he presided over the human authors in their entire work of writing, with the design and effect of rendering that writing an errorless record of the matters he designed them to communicate. A supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. The Church has held from the beginning that the Bible is the Word of God in such sense that its words, though written by men and bearing indelibly impressed upon them the marks of their human origin, were written, nevertheless, under such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the words of God, the adequate expression of His mind and will. The church has always recognized that this conception of co-authorship implies that the Spirit’s superintendence extends to the choice of the words by the human authors, and preserves its product from everything inconsistent with a divine authorship—thus securing, among other things, that entire truthfulness which is everywhere presupposed in and asserted for Scripture by the Biblical writers (inerrancy)’ [Hodge and Warfield, Inspiration, 17].

Perhaps more simply, Scripture is God’s words accurately delivered to mankind in writing through individuals chosen by God to communicate his revelation.

Inspiration is God communicating the very words the writers wrote. From birth God selected and prepared these men to write his word. He used their education, vocabulary, and style to write what he wanted written. "God intended to communicate; words are the means of communication; concepts cannot be communicated without words. The human authors assimilated the concepts in the words given to them by God. They wrote those very same words to communicate those same concepts to others.

The scriptures reveal objective facts that could not be known until revealed by God. Scripture is an accurate and inerrant report of the words of God, holy angels, men, women, Satan, and the other fallen angels (demons). Scripture is an accurate and inerrant report of objective historical facts and the actions, thoughts, words, and opinions of the persons living those historical events. The scriptures reveal the acts, thoughts, opinions, and words of men and women that originated within themselves, that is, which did not come from God, but have been revealed by God in the scriptures. The scriptures also accurately report lies. For example, the words of the serpent to Eve, You will not ‘surely die’." Inspiration in that instance means the human author was superintended by the Holy Spirit to report accurately the authentic words of the serpent. The Bible in the whole and in the parts is inspired as to its very words. Every word in the autographs was inspired, every word was equally inspired, and every word is fully authoritative as God’s word.

The term autograph" means the writing as it came from the author. There was one autograph of each Bible book. The letter Paul dictated to Tertius the scribe which Paul then sent to the Roman church was an autograph: the original letter, not a copy. Inspiration is claimed for the autographs of the sixty-six books of the Bible.

In the autographs God the Holy Spirit superintended the writers to make an accurate report of the words and actions of God, men and women, holy angels, Satan and demons. In all cases the words and actions reported are authentically the words as spoken or written and the actions as occurring. The autographs are therefore credible as the expression of the thoughts and actions of God, angels (holy and fallen), and human beings. The autographs were accurate, authentic, and credible: inerrant.

Preservation

The original writings (autographs) are no longer available. The papyrus and skins they were written on have long ago decayed. But they were copied, over and over again, by many people, in many places, for many centuries. As 1 Corinthians is a New Testament book, I will focus on the New Testament. Copies of the New Testament autographs are the most bibliographically documented writings in history. There are 5,800 Greek manuscripts (MSS), about 10,000 Latin MSS and about 9,300 MSS in other ancient languages (over 25,000 copies total). These are entire Bible books, parts of books, and fragments of books. Few copies exist of other ancient writings: two copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars; 700 copies of Homer’s Iliad"; thirty-seven copies of Shakespeare’s plays, each of which differs so significantly from the others the meaning is affected.

"There are about 400,000 variants in the 5,800 Greek copies. Of these, seventy-five percent are spelling and non-sensical errors, and twenty-four percent are concerned with word order. The remaining one percent (400) are variations in words or syntax that allow for slight variations in meaning. Most of those concern gospel harmonization—some copyists felt it their job to make each gospel read the same for the same event or circumstance. Only about fifty variants (out of the approximately 184,600 words in the New Testament) is of any major significance. There is no variant in 1 Corinthians 15:6 [Bruce Metzger, Commentary].

There is no doctrinal compromise in any of the 400,000 variant readings. The vast majority of variant readings concern grammatical details that do not significantly affect the meaning of the text" [Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, 35]. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice [F. F. Bruce, New Testament Documents, 19–20].

God preserved his word such that copies descended from the autographs are sufficient as the rule and guide of faith and practice. In every respect, the Bible Christians possess today is an authentic, accurate, and credible reproduction of the autographs. The most important differences in Bibles today are not the result of manuscript variations, but the result of the way different translators understand and accomplish the task of translation. Every individual who has objectively studied the 25,000 copies of the autographs has come to the conclusion the Bible as we have it today is completely trustworthy, far exceeding the standard of reliability applied to all ancient documents.

When we consider the doctrine of inspiration, and examine the overwhelming number of copies of the autographs, the conclusion is, what we have in today’s Bible is the authentic, accurate, and credible communication of God to humankind.

Accurate, Authentic Credible

What does the inspiration of the Bible mean? To some it means only the parts related to saving faith and Christian practice are inspired. To others it means people heard what God said and saw what God did and wrote what they thought about such things. Others, like myself, believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible in the whole and in the parts. But none of these statements truly define the biblical concept of the inspiration of Scripture. What defines inspiration is authenticity, accuracy, and credibility.

The English word inspiration is a translation of the Greek word theópneustos [Zodhiates, WSDNT, s. v. 2315]: God (theó) + breathed (pnéō), the scriptures are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). God breathed out the scriptures to select individuals who wrote what God breathed. They didn’t write mechanically, which is to say, inspiration is not dictation (although some words were dictated). Inspiration is.

The Holy Spirit preparing in advance, from birth, select individuals, to receive and express, in their own words, drawn from their education, experiences, and culture, what God wanted said, and

Those select individuals writing exactly the words God wanted written to communicate his revelation to humankind.

So the words those select individuals wrote are both their own words and the words God wanted written. The writers were not pens in the hand of God, they were individuals God worked in, through, and with to write his revelation.

Another word that explains inspiration is found in 2 Peter 1:21b. There are various translations, all attempting to accurately communicate the sense of the word most translate moved or carried along. My translation is, men of God spoke being carried by the Holy Spirit. The Greek word is phérō, to bring or bear [Zodhiates, WSDNT, s. v. 5342]. Two illustrations capture the sense in relation to the inspiration of the Bible. At Acts 27:15, the ship Paul was on was caught in a storm, so the sailors let the wind drive, phérō, the ship. The wind filled the sails, driving the ship. The second illustration is a log born along, phérō, by the river.

Inspiration is—not literally but in an illustration—the breath of God filling the sails of the writers, bearing them along to the destination—the revelation—God wanted them to communicate. Like all illustrations it is limited, designed to teach one thing; here, the action of the Holy Spirit in the writers. As previously noted, the scriptures reflect the writer’s own style of writing—their words drawn from their education, experiences, and culture. God used what they knew, their words, to communicate his words.

That’s the etymology (word history) of inspiration. What does it mean?

Is every word in the Bible God’s word. No. God spoke, the prophets spoke, Satan spoke, demons spoke, men and women spoke, Christ spoke, the apostles spoke. The Bible is not God’s word in the sense not all the words were spoken by God. The Bible is God’s Word in the sense it accurately communicates all the words spoken by all the persons that are recorded in the Bible—all the people and their words that God used to communicate his revelation. No matter who said it, that spoken word was authentically spoken by the person to whom it is attributed, was accurately reported by the person who wrote it, and is therefore the authentic communication of the speaker, and of God.

Is every word in the Bible true? No. Satan lies, demons lie, unsaved men lie, even saved men and women lie. The Bible accurately records their lies, and their cultural biases, and their unscientific knowledge, their superstitions, their misapprehensions, their wrong interpretations, their pride, and whatever right or wrong thing they said or did. Did God, those angels and men, really speak those words? Yes, the report of their words, of their every word, is authentic and accurate, and therefore credible as a report of what they said.

The events the Bible reports—historical narrative—authentically took place, are accurately reported, and therefore credible as genuine historical events. Is every word in the Bible a genuine report of what was thought, said, and done? Yes. Inspiration guarantees what was written authentically occurred, and was accurately reported, and therefore is credible as the testimony of God as to what was thought, and what was said, and what was done.

So, just to be clear, just because it is in the Bible doesn’t mean it is true, doesn’t mean God approves, doesn’t mean it is right, or moral, or makes good sense. The source must always be considered, which means, when interpreting, take into account the person, their culture, their spiritual state, their sin(s) and compare what was thought, said, done, or believed with God’s values, and principles, and precepts in order to correctly interpret the authentic, accurate, and credible report given by God through inspiration. Just because the Bible says somebody thought it, said it, did it, or believed it doesn’t mean God approved it.

The inspiration of the Bible means God the Holy Spirit so prepared the writers for the task, and so supervised the writers in the task, that every word they wrote is the authentic, accurate, and credible testimony of what was thought, said, done, and believed. Inspiration means every word in the autographs (the original writings), was inspired (verbal inspiration), every word is equally inspired (plenary inspiration) and every word is inerrant (accurately reported). Every word accurately presents the authentic thoughts, words, deeds, and beliefs of God, holy and fallen angels, saved and unsaved men and women, and is therefore credible as the testimony of God, angels, and humankind.

The Bible is God’s credible revelation to humanity concerning himself and his purpose, plans, and processes for the things and beings of the spirit and material domains (the universe) which he created. (John 15:26–27; 16:13–15; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21; 1 Peter 1:10–12; Hebrews 1:1; Ephesians 2:20; 3:5).

The Reliability of the Gospel Accounts

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were never intended by the Holy Spirit to be a complete account of the person, life, and work of Jesus the Christ. The question, then, is Why are they so alike but also so different? A simple illustration will explain my answer to that question.

Let us suppose four friends visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona, USA. Each person has been given a camera and notepad (or a phone and I-Pad) on which to record his experiences. Let us suppose they almost always travel as a group, thus visiting the same places at the same time. Occasionally one will go somewhere by himself, or perhaps just stay in the tent for the day. Each takes pictures of similar vistas, but each has his own perspective. Each writes of his own particular experience.

Upon returning home, each prepares a book with narrative and pictures of his experience. Upon comparison, some narratives and pictures are the same, some similar, some different, some missing. Although they almost always went together to the same place and saw the same scenes, each person has his own experiences, perspective, photographs, and style of writing.

The Four Gospels tell the story of one person, but from the point of view of four persons. The narratives of Christ’s ministry in each of the Four Gospels is based on the personal experiences of many eyewitnesses. Matthew learned from Peter, Andrew, John, James, et al, what happened before he began to travel with Jesus. Mark is Peter’s Gospel (see below). John was with Jesus from the beginning, John 1:35–39. Luke learned from many people (Luke 1:2, eyewitnesses; 1:3, parakolouthéō, investigate [Zodhiates, WSDNT, s. v. 3877]), comparing this account with that account. Each was guided by the Holy Spirit to record what they saw and heard, making their own choices and writing in their own style. That is inspiration. God so prepared and superintended the writers of Scripture that in speaking and writing their own words, they wrote God’s words. God intended each to write a narrative of Jesus words and works from his own particular perspective and experiences. When the gospel accounts are put together, they give us a complete picture of—not everything Jesus did but sufficient for understanding—Jesus Christ’s Person, words, and works.

The provenance of the four accounts also explains their selectivity. There are two views. View one. About thirty years after Christ’s ascension, the apostles felt the need to commit in writing the story they had been telling. Others felt this need also. The eyewitnesses—more than the twelve apostles—were getting older, and soon the eyewitness testimony would disappear. The Gospels were written to preserve the eyewitness testimony for future generations. In this point of view, Mark was written first, AD 50–55; then Matthew, AD 58–60; then Luke, AD 58–62 (written, or completed, while Paul was confined at the Governor’s house, Acts 23:23–26:32) and John’s Gospel AD 95–96, at Ephesus.

David Alan Black has proposed another view, which makes sense to me [Black, Why Four Gospels?]. Black has proposed Matthew’s gospel was written and published prior to the persecution by Herod Agrippa I in AD 42 (Acts 12), for believers to use in evangelizing the fellow Jews. This was the gospel Paul used on his missionary journeys. As he preached to the Gentiles, Paul recognized the need for an account of Jesus that met the needs of the Gentile community, just as Matthew had met the heeds of the Hebrew community. During his imprisonment in Caesarea (AD 60–62) Paul chose Luke to write a gospel for the Gentiles. When Luke was finished, Paul did not immediately publish Luke’s Gospel. Neither Luke nor Paul had been eyewitnesses of Jesus, but Luke’s work was an historical investigation into the life of Jesus using eyewitness accounts. Because Paul was by then on his way to Rome, he deferred publication until he could have a commendation for Luke’s Gospel from an eyewitness, the apostle Peter. Peter’s reaction was to give a series of lectures comparing Luke’s Gospel with Matthew’s Gospel. These lectures were stenographically recorded, and later, at the insistence of those who had heard the lectures, published from the stenographic records.

The consistent witness of the early church fathers is that Mark recorded Peter preaching in Rome and later published what Peter had preached. The oldest and most important of these witnesses is Papias (AD 70–155). Papias, in Fragment VI of what remains of his Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, said this about the Gospel of Mark.

And the Presbyter [John] said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [Roberts, ANF, 1:153, 155–156 (Fragments, 1, 6)]

The phrase, the interpreter of Peter probably means no more than Mark reproduced Peter’s teaching as he had heard and remembered.

Other witnesses are Irenaeus (AD 120–202), Against Heresies, 3.1.1; 6.14. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215), Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13. Origen (184–253), Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.

Mark, then, was not the author of the Gospel but simply the agent of its publication, because all of this material came from Peter’s own memories of what Jesus had said and done and because what Mark did was to retrieve faithfully, as Peter’s amanuensis, what the latter had spoken on certain special occasions [Black, Why, 60-61]. Why did Mark publish Peter’s lectures? Clement of Alexandria stated, Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel under the influence of the spirit and those who had heard Peter requested Mark reduce these things to writing. Mark’s purpose was to give to those in Rome a complete and accurate record of Peter’s preaching about Jesus Christ.

Mark’s Gospel, then, if Black is correct (which I believe he is) consists wholly of Peter’s lectures. Black’s proposal also explains why Mark’s Gospel does not end at 16:8. Black proposes Peter did not lecture on the resurrection and afterwards because Matthew and Luke had covered that material. So, when first published, Mark’s Gospel ended where Peter’s lectures had ended. Later, after Peter had died, Mark issued a second edition with the material found in Mark 16:9–20, to round off the final discourse. These verses form a summary catalogue of references to the resurrection stories of Matthew and Luke [Black, Why, 16]. Whether or not Black’s proposal is correct, the testimony from the church fathers is undeniable. Mark’s Gospel is Peter’s Gospel.

John’s Gospel, if carefully studied, will be seen to focus on those aspects of Jesus’ ministry not covered by the Synoptic Gospels. John’s Gospel rounds out the snapshot of Jesus provided by the first three.

The Four Gospels were each written for a particular purpose, with a particular audience in mind. Combining the accounts does not give a complete picture of the Person and Works of Jesus Christ, because the accounts were never intended to perform that function. As the apostle John said, looking back on his own work and that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they should be written, every one, I suppose not even the world itself to have space to hold the books to be written, John 21:25. Combining the accounts puts in one place all the details the Holy Spirit wanted believers to know.

Dates, Days, and Hours in the Gospels

Dates and Days

The dates, days, and hours of the day are more than curiosities in the story of the arrest, trials, condemnation, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Christ. They provide the assurance of an eyewitness account, inspired by God the Holy Spirit, therefore accurate, authentic, and credible. Salvation does not depend on knowing these details, but the credibility of one’s salvation is greatly assured when the details are known to be accurate. Either Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:3–4, or we have believed a fable.

Translating those dates, days, and hours of the day in the biblical narrative into modern terms is less assured. The Bible tells us Jesus was crucified and died on the preparation day, John 19:31. The preparation day was the day before the Sabbath day. The preparation day was day six of the week, the Sabbath being day seven. People prepared for the Sabbath, a day with many personal restrictions, both biblical and traditional. Therefore we know Jesus died and was buried on day six.

The mention of day six brings up how the Bible counts the days. Prior to the Babylonian Exile, 609–539 BC, the Hebrews counted seven days, and named them day of the week one, day two, day three, day four, day five, day six, and day seven, which was the only named day, the Sabbath [http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm]. This numbering was based on Genesis 1. The count of days began anew with day one after day seven, continuing with predictable regularity week by week. During the Babylonian Exile, and continuing after, the Jews—in Babylon the Hebrews were known as the captives from Judea, which had quickly been shortened to Jew—the Jews adopted Gentile names for the days of the week; but the Bible continued to number the days. So, too, this book will number the days according to the biblical method.

This numbering method will be seen to be essential when comparing Jewish days with the Roman and modern (essentially the same) means of reckoning the days. The Jewish day of the week changed at sunset, but the Roman (and modern) day of the week did not change until midnight. As an example, at sunset on Nisan 12, the day changed from day six to day seven, the Sabbath, and the date from Nisan 12 to Nisan 13. But the modern day-date remained Friday, April 1 until midnight, when the modern day-date became Saturday, April 2. The Sabbath was not, as is popularly believed, on Saturday, but extended, in the modern way of reckoning, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. The table at the end of this chapter will show the relationship between the Jewish and Roman (modern) day-date reckoning.

Above I said, We know Jesus died and was buried on day six. What modern day corresponded to the day Jesus died? We know the month was Nisan, because the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were celebrated in the month of Nisan. What we don’t know with certainty was when, on the modern calendar, the month of Nisan began. The Passover lamb was killed on Nisan 14, Exodus 12:2–6, Leviticus 23:5, after which it was roasted, beginning at twilight, and then eaten as the 14th became the 15th with the setting of the sun. What we don’t know, with certainty, was what modern day-date corresponds with Nisan 14–15, AD 33.

We are reasonably certain Passover day, Nisan 14, was what we would think of as Thursday. Not only because the preparation day was what we think of as Friday, but also because the Triumphal Entry was what we would think of as Sunday. Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany. Counting the day of arrival as day one: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Nisan 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Not everyone agrees—not because of the way the Jews counted the days, but because they want Jesus’ body in the grave a literal 72 hours (a literal three days)—but that is another discussion altogether.

The issue in this discussion is, why can’t we know the exact correspondence between the Jewish calendar and the modern calendar? After all, every month on the Jewish calendar began with the new moon, and today we can accurately calculate the new moon for any year past, present, and future. The reason we cannot be certain, is the way the Jews determined the new moon, compared to the modern way of determining the new moon. For an explanation, we must look at astronomical data

Astronomical Data

Every people group in the ancient biblical world used a lunar calendar of approximately 29 days in a month (29.53), 354 days in a year. The days in a lunar month run from new moon to new moon. Here is the first problem in synchronizing the modern calendar with the ancient calendar: a new moon occurs when the earth blocks the sun from shining on the moon (known as the conjunction: the earth is between the sun and the moon), meaning the new moon is not visible in the sky. The moon receives no light, and therefore cannot be seen. When the moon cannot be seen it is known as a new moon.

The second synchronization problem is a lunar year is 354 days, but a sidereal year is 365.2564 days (a sidereal year, aka solar year, is calculated by comparing the earth’s orbit around the sun in relation to certain fixed stars). The sidereal year rounds to 365.25 days, which the ancient world knew, but everyone still used the lunar dating method, because it was easier to calculate. For the Jews, a new day began at sunset, a new month began with the new moon.

The third synchronization problem is the earth’s seasons are fixed by the earth’s orbit in relation to the sun. Example: using a sidereal calendar, Spring always begins the same month, so an annual celebration of Spring always begins at the same time every year. That is why, e.g., the ancients raised certain monuments that allowed them to calculate the position of the earth in relation to its orbit of the sun. But with a lunar calendar, the months drift in relation to the earth’s orbit. After about three years, the lunar months are out of cycle with the solar year by about one month.

The First Synchronization Problem

How did the ancient Jews fix these synchronization problems? The first synchronization problem is the invisible new moon began a new month. The Jews watched the phases of the moon (new, crescent, half, full, half, crescent, new) and counted the days between each phase. Then, they watched the sky, looking for the first sliver of the crescent moon after the new moon. When the first sliver was sighted, they counted back the number of days observation and experience told then was the number of days between the new moon and the first sliver of the crescent moon. In Jesus’ day, the sighting of the first sliver of the crescent moon after the new moon definitely established when a particular month was begun, and thereby dated all the required sacrifices and feasts, such as Passover or Unleavened Bread, within that month.

But, if the weather was overcast on the days when the new crescent moon should be seen, then the beginning of a month was estimated by the priests by counting days from the beginning of the previous month. Or, if the sky was overcast for two days, but cleared on the third, and the waxing crescent moon was seen, the first day of the month was back-dated by one or two days. The azimuth of the moon above the horizon varies, and perhaps the azimuth was low one particular month and the first sighting missed. This could affect the start dates of succeeding months into the following year, depending on weather and other variable conditions.

The synchronization problem with the modern calendar is the actual sighting of the waxing crescent moon, which determined the first day of the new month, might vary from the modern astronomical calculation by one to three days. One day’s error in sighting the waxing crescent moon, caused by bad weather or any other variable, is the difference between dating the crucifixion on Friday, Nisan 14 or Friday, Nisan 15.

The Second and Third Synchronization Problems

The second synchronization problem is the lunar year is 354 days, but a sidereal year is 365.2564 days. This meant the seasons, and therefore the celebration of the several feasts, drifted in relation to the sidereal calendar. A simple example. The Wave sheaf of the Feast of First Fruits was offered the tomorrow after the Sabbath after the Passover (Leviticus 23:9–14). The sheaf that was waved before the Lord was the first sheaf of ripened barley. But, as the lunar calendar drifted against the seasons, there would come a time when the barley was not ripe, or the barley had been harvested, threshed, and stored, so the sheaf of the first fruits was no longer available.

The Jews (and other ancient societies) fixed this problem by inserting extra days, weeks, and even an extra month, from time to time, into their lunar calendar. For example, the Jews, and other ancient peoples, knew that a thirteenth month was required to be inserted [between the twelfth and first month] seven times in a nineteen year cycle, in order to keep the lunar calendar in line with the solar/harvest year. The synchronization problem is, no one today can say with accuracy when, or how many, days, weeks, and months were inserted over the (approximately) 1,500 years from Exodus 12:2 to Passover Nisan 14, AD 33. Today we can calculate days and dates in the past exact accuracy. But no one today can know with accuracy how today’s calculations compare with the past. There is always a margin of error.

An Additional Synchronization Problem

The final problem is man-made. The Jewish day began at sunset and ran from sunset to sunset. Some have suggested that under the Romans the Jews switched to the midnight-to-midnight reckoning. Some Jews may have done this. But not in the Gospel accounts. For example, Mark 1:29–32,

And immediately, having left the synagogue, they came into Simon and Andrew’s house, with James and John. And Simon’s mother-in-law had lain down sick, fevering. And immediately they speak to him about her. And having come to her, having taken her hand, he healed her, and the fever left her, and she served them. Now evening having come, when the sun went down, they brought to him all those who are ill and those demonized."

The populace of Capernaum waited until evening, because at sunset the day changed from day seven, Sabbath-Saturday, to day one, Sunday.

Some commentators, when applying astronomical calculations to Jewish reckoning, forget to also apply the sunset-to-sunset method of reckoning the days.

Conclusion to Astronomical Section

One can say with accuracy that the conjunction of the new moon prior to Passover AD 33 began on such and such a date expressed in modern terms, but no one can say for certain just how close the ancient Jewish determination of Nisan 1 in the year Jesus died might be to modern astronomical data and mathematical calculations. The astronomical method cannot account for possible variables. Therefore, the astronomical evidence is helpful but not conclusive. Moreover, modern astronomical calculations use a midnight to midnight method to determine the day of the week, which automatically makes the modern assessment of the date to lead the AD 33 Jewish date by one day. The modern view is that Passover, Nisan 14, AD 33, occurred on a Friday. However, this modern reckoning is in error because it determines the days of the week by using the modern midnight to midnight method. When one uses the biblical sunset-to-sunset method, Nisan 14 was day five, Thursday, and the Passover celebration began in the evening of day five, as the sun was setting. The arrest, trials, and crucifixion occurred after the sun had set, making the day to be day six, Friday. See table, below.

Reckoning the Hours of the Day

Knowing how the gospel writers reckoned time is important. There were no time-keeping devices in the ancient world. One looked up to find the position of the sun in the sky and estimated the time of day. In the daylight hours, the time of the day was identified as sunrise, mid-morning, noon, mid-afternoon, evening. If the sun was midway between mid-morning and noon then one person might reckon backwards to mid-morning, another reckon ahead to noon.

Some used Roman reckoning. John seems to use Roman reckoning. The Romans reckoned the day from midnight. The watches of the night conformed to the Roman use. The night watches were the first, sunset to 9:00 p.m.; the second, 9:00 p.m. to midnight; the third, midnight to 3:00 a.m.; the fourth watch, 3:00 a.m. to sunrise. Of course, these are approximations to modern time-keeping. The position of the moon and cock-crowing established the approximate time of day. During the daylight hours, sunrise was the sixth hour, 9:00 a.m. was the ninth hour, and so on.

The Jews (after the Babylonian captivity) reckoned the hours of the day from sunrise, so early morning was the first hour, 9:00 a.m. was the third hour, mid-day was the sixth hour, the ninth hour was about 3:00 p.m., and the close of the daytime was the eleventh hour [Edersheim, Temple, 159].

Format of the Combined Gospel Narrative

This study of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Christ follows the order of gospel events used by most gospel harmonies.

Combining the Four Gospels into one narrative was first accomplished by Tatian of Adiabene (AD 120–180). His work was written in Arabic and originally known as, Diatessaron, which Titianus Compiled from the Four Gospels. The Latin translation is titled, Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniæ, Arabice. Today the work is more generally known as The Diatessaron Of Tatian. Isho‘dad of Merv (ca. 852), described the work as, Tatian, disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr, selected from the four gospels, and combined and composed a gospel, and called it Diatessaron, i.e., the Combined [Menzies, ANF, 9:37].

More recently (1969), Johnston M. Cheney created a combined narrative, published in his work, The Life of Christ In Stereo.

Tatian’s Diatessaron did not identify which words came from what gospel. The Diatessaron uses sentences from each gospel. For example.

And other things he taught and preached among the people. Then came Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized of him. And Jesus was about thirty years old, and it was supposed that he was the son of Joseph. And John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, This is the Lamb of God, that taketh on itself the burden of the sins of the world! [Menzies, ANF, 9:49]

In this arrangement, the first sentence is Luke 3:18, the second Matthew 3:13; the third Luke 3:23a, the fourth John 1:29.

Later translators worked out the order, creating a table of gospel references, and also placing the references in a column to the right of the narrative. Such labor indicates readers of the Diatessaron found value in knowing which parts came from what gospel. As Cheney says, combining the gospels displays the fact that the four Gospels agree together in all their details and reveal the guiding hand of an unseen author.

Identifying what came from where reveals, the guiding hand of an unseen author, to the reader. In addition, identifying the origin of each word, phrase, paragraph, or sentence reminds us the Four Gospels were never intended to be a complete history of Jesus Christ, but a narrative revealing God, his salvific purpose in Christ the Redeemer, and something of God’s plans for the future. Additionally, references to the parts that compose the whole allow the Bible student to compare the combined narrative to the individual gospel accounts.

All gospel harmonies begin each section of the narrative with scripture references. Translators of the Diatessaron place the Scripture references in a column to the right of the combined narrative. Cheney used superscript numbers to identify which words came from what gospel. I have also headed the sections with Scripture references. Through trial and error I have decided superscript characters cause the least disruption to reading. Mt ‘ Matthew; Mk ‘ Mark; Lu ‘ Luke; Jn ‘ John.

For example.

Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12–13;Luke 22:7–8

Mt Then came, Mk on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, Lu on which it was necessary the Passover lamb be sacrificed, Mt the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where would you like us to Mk go to Mt prepare for you to eat the Passover? Mk And he sent two of his disciples, Lu Peter and John, saying, prepare for us the Passover so we might eat it.

The translations of the Four Gospels are my translations. In ordering the scriptures I have followed my own judgment, but have also been guided by Tatian’s Diatessaron, Cheney’s Stereo, and Cox and Easley in Harmony of the Gospels. The arrangement of the scripture portions into a combined narrative is my work, but again, I have been guided by those who worked ahead of me. Naturally, there will be similarities between my combined narrative, Tatian’s Diatessaron, and Cheney’s Stereo. The words, dialogue, and events require in themselves a certain order.

In the Gospel narrative I have occasionally exchanged the pronoun in the Greek text for the noun it represents, to clarify the narrative, and have inserted or rearranged a word to make a more reasonable English translation. For example.

Lu 22:3 Then Satan entered into Judas, the one being called Iscariot, Mk 14:10 one of the twelve, went away to the chief priests, that him he might deliver into their power. [See the Greek text here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/22-3.htm and here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14-10.htm]

Lu 22:3 Then Satan entering into Judas, the one called Iscariot, Mk 14:10 one of the twelve, he went away to the chief priests, that he might deliver Jesus into their power.

I have also changed the way some verbs in the Greek text are expressed. For example (italicized).

Aorist participle middle voice. "Now Jesus having been in Bethany." Matthew 26:6. [See here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/26-6.htm]

Replaced with, "Now Jesus being in Bethany,"

The aorist tense can be difficult to express in English. The aorist expresses an undefined action that has taken place, usually in the past. But in English, translating the aorist having been may imply Jesus was in Bethany in the past but is not in Bethany in the present. Thus, the translation being, to give the sense Jesus had been and still was in Bethany when the supper took place.

The days and dates in the combined narrative are my work and form a kind of structural outline for the Gospel events. See the table, in the previous chapter. The first version of the table was created as part of the resolution of the supposed contradiction caused by John 18:28 [Quiggle, John 13–21, Appendix One]. I modified that table for this present work to show more clearly the relationship between ancient and modern days and dates.

Harmonizing the Supper at Bethany

The Gospel narrative below begins on Nisan 13, two days before the Passover. In the minds of some familiar with the gospels, that immediately raises the question of harmonization between Matthew 26:1–6; Mark 14:1–3 and 12:1–8. In order to set the context for Nisan 13, this chapter answers the harmonization problem.

Most harmonies (Cheney, Life of Christ in Stereo is an exception) show Matthew and Mark reporting the supper at Bethany two days before Passover, and apparently the same day Judas meeting with the priests to contract with them to betray Jesus. But John 12:1–8 shows the supper at Bethany six days before the Passover. John doesn’t show Judas meeting with the priests to betray Jesus, so the two days before the Passover for Judas is unaffected by John’s Gospel. Luke 22:2–6 reports Judas meeting with the priests, but not the timing nor the Bethany supper.

The way most gospel harmonies arrange the three Synoptic reports supposes a gap between John 12:1 and 12:2, leading to the supposition John 12:1 is John’s announcement Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover, but the supper beginning at 12:2–8 took place two days before the Passover. That solution places the Triumphal entry, John 12:12–19, between John 12:1 and 12:2. That solution always seemed unsatisfactory. How should the three reports be harmonized?

One option is, there were there two suppers in Bethany: one at the house of Lazarus, John 12:2, and one at the house of Simon the leper, Mark 14:3, Matthew 26:6. That is unlikely, because the anointing with spikenard occurs in all three reports of the Bethany supper. Moreover, John 12:2 doesn’t actually say the supper was at the home of Lazarus, simply that Lazarus was present.

Another option is the story of anointing in Luke 7:36–50 is the story in Matthew 26 and Mark 14. This is unlikely because the details are different. At the Bethany supper the spikenard is poured on Jesus head and feet, but in Luke’s story only on Jesus feet. In Luke the woman wets Jesus’ feet with her tears, but at the Bethany anointing there are no tears.

Luke is no help, because he doesn’t relate the story of the Bethany supper. Matthew and Mark seem to date the Bethany supper two days before the Passover. John definitely dates it six days before the Passover. My observation, and that of others, is John’s Gospel reports events in chronological order, but the order of events in the Synoptics is more according to topic, less according to chronology.

If we take a closer look at Mark 14:1–2, he doesn’t actually date the supper at Bethany, but he is probably dating the meeting of the religious leaders plotting to kill Jesus. Here is the Scripture:

Now it was the Passover and the Unleavened Bread after two days. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking, how having taken him by treachery, they might kill him. For they said, Not during the feast, lest at that time there will be an uproar of the people.

Mark reports Judas’ meeting with the priests, but not the timing. He places the meeting after the Bethany supper (14:3–9) in 14:10–11 (here are the scriptures):

And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went away to the chief priests, that him he might deliver into their power. 11 Now hearing, they rejoiced, and promised to give him money. And he looked for an opportunity how he might deliver him into their power.

But because Mark arranges his subject matter topically, it is not necessarily after the Bethany Supper. The reader casually assumes the priest’s plotting to kill Jesus, the Bethany supper, and Judas’ meeting with the priests all took place two days before the Passover.

Matthew appears to associate the Bethany supper with two days before the Passover. Here are the scriptures.

Matthew 26:1–6, And so it was when Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, You know that after two days the Passover comes, and the son of man is handed over to be crucified. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered in the courtyard of the high priest, who is called Caiaphas, and consulted together in order that they might take hold of Jesus by trickery and kill him; but they said, Not during the feast, that there not be a riot among the people. Now Jesus having been in Bethany" etc.

But Matthew also doesn’t actually give the day of the Bethany supper. Neither does he give the day Judas’ met with the priests. Here are the scriptures.

Matthew 26:14–16, Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas Iscariot, having gone to the chief priests, said, What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver him to you? Now they weighed out to him thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought an opportunity that he might deliver him.

The reader simply assumes it was after the Bethany super (26:6–13), which is assumed to have been two days before the Passover (26:1–2). Matthew placing this event after the supper in his narrative does not necessarily mean the event is chronologically after the supper, because Matthew also arranges his materially topically.

John doesn’t mention Judas’ meeting with the priests. He reports the Bethany supper as six days before