A Case for AD 27 Part 2

An argument for AD 27 (being the year of the Crucifixion of Jesus) Part II

In the first part of this paper I outlined the main argument for AD 27 as being a valid year for the Crucifixion. To recap, I outlined the possibility of that year being the year it happened due to Luke 3:1 ‘fifteenth year’ of Tiberius’s reign, which is generally thought to be the start of Jesus’s ministry, being inclusively counted back to his co-reigning era, which began more or less in AD 12, and fifteen years would be AD 26. Which then suggests a one year (and a few months) ministry only is possible. However, I then mentioned the impediment to this length is John’s Gospel which mentions multiple Passovers; one right in the beginning of his narrative, as in chapter 2, the one in chapter 6, and then the Passion Passover. Those are the three mentions of festivals, in John, that currently have the word ‘Passover’ attached (see below). That would thus mean even if Jesus began preaching in the early months of a year, such as February or March, a one-year ministry isn’t possible. 

It is around this time of year we have turned our attention to the Passion and Crucifixion anew (although I have always been intrigued by it even if more in a historical sense). I have recently seen a video online showing the layout of Jerusalem where it all unfolded. It is not as I would have pictured I have to say.  Golgotha is much closer to the old city than I expected. The site, Golgotha right outside the old wall of the city, is nearest the Ganath Gate and only perhaps a kilometer or less from Herod’s palace where it is suspected, both Pilate and Herod were staying for the Passover festival. So it is likely Jesus was tried and flogged at the palace then perhaps carried the cross there. 

(On a side note, one thing I found interesting about the sequence of events, according to Matthew, played out is the constant change in attire for Jesus. First he is apprehended and appears before Pilate presumably in his own clothing. He is then, after Barrabas is let go, flogged, presumably with his clothing partially removed, then redressed and placed before Pilate again, now dressed in a scarlet robe and crown of thorns, shown to the crowd in this mockery then dressed again or at least it says the scarlet robe is removed, and I assume is dressed in his original clothes when taking up the cross. It can be taken to mean he was still wearing the crown of thorns as it is not mentioned being removed.)

Back to my recapping though, I mentioned that I would pick up here, in Part II, regarding the multiple Passovers in John, and somehow try to fit, or harmonize, with the AD 27 timeline. Yes, I would have to explain those specifically; the synoptics only mention the final Passover and thus are not an issue for this theory and one could even suggest a one-year ministry.

The key verses in question, in John, are 2:13, and 6:4 (and possibly 5:1 and I don’t question the final Passover of course). John 2:13 says Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover: 

“When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem”.

Then in 4:45 Jesus is in Galilee, afterward, thus one can the Passover had occurred. The next Passover definitely mentioned is 6:4 where Jesus feeds the five thousand but does not go to Jerusalem. Some have argued, as I mention below, that there may not have been the word ‘Passover’ originally here and that it was some other festival. There is also, as I mentioned in 5:1 which is similar in that it could be a Passover but is only referred to as “a” festival (see below again). Then the final entry into Jerusalem for Passover is in Chapter 12. Thus, if one wanted to explain a one-year ministry it can be rather tricky (explaining how and why there are at least three passovers). 

Several scholars and church fathers have attempted as much over the years from as early as Clement of Alexandria, who wrote:

“...and that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year.”

Up to more recently Henry Brown Ordo Saeclorum which I’ve skimmed, suggests that ‘Π?σχα’ or Pascha (Passover) was not in the original or earlier texts of John 6:4, by way of inferring Irenaeus would have mentioned it in his refutation of the Valentinians own belief of a one-year ministry, (which is one of the more prominent theories I’ve deduced, regarding a possible one-year ministry as suggested in this book and by Gerhard Vossius, Zachary Pearce among others.) 

You also have, in the Bible, verses Isaiah 61:2, ”to proclaim the year of the Lord…”emphasis on ‘year’ singular. This is the verse Clement cites in his writing. Exodus 12:5 outlines the directions for celebrating Passover and mentions ”Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year”.

This last reading is used sometimes during the Triduum services, suggesting a parallel with Jesus’s ministry. (It is interesting to me, though it sort of confuses everything, that John is the one often thought by many scholars to have organized his narrative in theological and symbolical order versus chronological necessarily is the evangelist with which is out of sync seemingly with this idea and seemingly doesn't factor in the one-year lamb idea.)

My theory is essentially that Jesus’ ‘central’ ministry lasted for around one year, those events captured in the synoptics and in the later chapters of John, and that the events and miracles occurring before them, noticed only in John, occurred beforehand (which would be AD 25 in my case). Thus, the baptism of Christ, (or ministerial beginning) and the calling of the apostles, which is linked to the Baptism, in that John the Baptist told the first two disciples to follow Christ the day after His Baptism, could have been repositioned in the one or the other three but more likely the former (John).  Essentially the Baptism and the Calling of the Twelve have been repositioned in one gospel or the others.  

John 2:11 says the Wedding of Cana miracle was the first miracle, the Synoptics do not have any sort of similar verse suggesting a hard line of when miracles began, nor do they mention any of the other events in the early Chapters of John (2-4), except for the Cleansing of the temple, and they have that leading up to Jesus’s Passion) thus these remaining events (Cana, the Meeting with Nicodemus and other miracles performed in Jerusalem the) occur ahead of the events in the synoptics and that either John or the Synoptics have theologically moved the baptism start to account for them. Like I say there isn't a first miracle declaration in the synoptics, leaving room for some occurring before the fifteenth year of Tiberius. This then satisfies the issue of multiple Passover’s in John and the perceived one only in the Synoptics.
You see hardly any overlap in early John with the Synoptics and then, in the ‘Central Ministry’ i.e. the year in my model, there is that, with the Feeding of the 5,000, the Walking on Water and the final Passover, save for the Cleansing of the Temple which occurs in that final visit in the Synoptics.

Raymond Brown, a biblical scholar and priest, specializing in the Gospel of John, suggests some parts of Chapters 2 are moved out of chronology or could have been. He seems to think the temple cleansing occurred during the final Jerusalem trip, and was moved achronologically, to the beginning of John:

“If the insertion of the Lazarus narrative caused a displacement of the cleansing scene, what more natural than to join it to an anti-Temple statement that was found in the beginning of the Johannine narrative?”

(I have come to agree with, for the purposes of harmonization with the Synoptic Gospels, yet

 the ‘After this…’ in John which in the original Greek (Μετ? τα?τα) at first perplexed me, and I wondered whether John would move an entire section out of order and yet still have the audacity to say “After this”. Because after ‘this’, as in after the affairs of chapter 2 and the beginning of 3, Jesus is then in the Judean countryside, in John’s Gospel, and John the Baptist is there and clearly not yet arrested (John 3:24). Thus, if even some of this sequence and is an anachronism, and perhaps placed early on in the narrative for effect, for further extrapolation of Jesus’s purpose or ministry perhaps closer to meaning ‘next’ or ‘then’ more, and not necessarily suggesting an exact sequence. He uses it somewhat often, in 2:12, 5:1, 3:22 and other places.)

Brown proposes specifically the Cleansing of the Temple was moved from the final trip and as he says, “lines up with the synoptics suggesting it was one of the main reasons for Jesus’s arrest”. I would think that if we accept this theory we can derive that narrative is not chronologically organized in places (and the Church does not disallow this sort of thinking; Dei Verbum acknowledges the Evangelists/Divinely inspired writers could have interposed or moved around events.)

And yet, if John is in places thematically and/or theologically arranged, why then lean on his gospel for the year of crucifixion in the first place? The synoptics have the Crucifixion occurring on Nisan 15 and thus would make for different years, based on astronomical calculations, possible? Dating these things isn't a very precise science, but 27 AD does fit better if we use Nisan 15, as I’ve come to realize.

While I’m on the subject, other scholars and their calculations such as those of the Tyndale Bulletin, I think even would admit that AD 27 is not only possible, which they do anyway but that the probability of it ‘landing’ on the day of crucifixion is higher when considering both John and the Synoptics. Nisan the month could have started a day later than the precise astronomical new moon due to poor visibility, as in the Sanhedrin called it starting the following day, which, if so Nisan 14 would have been a Friday, aligning with John’s narrative. If not so it would have been Thursday and thus aligning with the Synoptic’s Nisan 15 crucifixion date. The same isn't the case with either AD 30 nor AD 33. Those only work for John’s account. If one preferred the synoptics view, then those years wouldn't work at all because Nisan 15 would be on a Saturday. 

The sojourn to Jerusalem by Jesus mentioned in John 2, would have occurred in AD 25, according to my theory, occurring before His the ‘Central Ministry’ of the Synoptics, technically began. As I mentioned He says at the Wedding of Cana, which comes right before this trip, ‘My hour has not yet come’. Hour is singular by the way and if it does refer to His ministry well then that is interesting too. 

I wouldn’t need to suggest that the Wedding of Cana and the disciples following Jesus (Chapter 1) and some of the other mentions in John 2-4 occurred during a sort of prologue to His ministry viz. Luke’s timeline, either; of course, Jesus would have been to Jerusalem multiple times for Passover perhaps every year as a youth, (as mentioned in Luke chapter 2) as it was essentially a requirement for Jews to go there for that festival, but the strongest case for this is the ‘hour’ quote and that the Temple Cleansing placement of the synoptics.  And while the Church doesn't require that Jesus did not do miracles before his ministry began either, if you only count the central, and He was already astounding the teachers in the temple, Mary at the Wedding of Cana also appears to be aware that not only is He divine but can perform miracles.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.””, you do have the line in John 2:11 stating that the Wedding miracle was His first. Which is why it seems to me that the Baptism was moved ahead to account for these events in John as I say which is more likely than the Synoptics themselves theologically moving it to His final year.

The Jewish feast mentioned in 5:1 is possibly the Feast of Purim or perhaps Shauvut. Purim, which fits it better for my model and chronologically, was held on Adar 14–15, or March 4-6 that year (although Shauvut, or Shavut, was a required pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for able-bodied Jews).  So then, Jesus, if this is the case, would then be in Jerusalem for one of the two festivals and did not return, as is stated, in 6:4 for that Passover.

By the way, the four major codices are split here on whether it (the festival of 5:1) was “The” festival, as in Passover, or if it were “a” festival (as in no definite article) which means the “festival” could possibly then refer to one of the other festivals. Two out of four, the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaeticus omit the definite article and the other two (Alexandrinus and Bezae) include it, and the Nestle-Aland Greek Bible follows the former two. 

If 5:1 refers to the Feast of the Passover, by the way, then a whole year seems to elapse from 5:1 to 6:4, whereas if 5:1 is referring to Purim, then only a month or less elapses.)

“We suggest that the editing of the Gospel led to the transposition of the

scene from the original sequence which related it to the last days before

Jesus' arrest.” 

Brown here seems to think the first Nicodemus meeting was moved anyway and seems to ignore the "after this" of 3:22.  Something tells me John wouldn't have said" after this" if he just moved them out of sequence unless it is simply a typical expression, and would have more likely started differently in 3:22.as in why not just say. “While Jesus was in…”

I find "after this" to be a slight deal...it seems a tad different to move something somewhere for effect but then to keep on with it and pretend it is in sequence is something I don't think an evangelist would do; slightly interesting is that John doesn't use ‘after this’ after the Cleansing but picks up ‘ while he was in Jerusalem’

Another compelling argument for AD 27 being the year of crucifixion is that, if the Cleansing of the Temple did happen during Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem that year, as the Synoptics suggest then there is an interesting support in John 2:20:

 “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple…”

Schaff, by the way, agrees the temple construction year is either 20 or 19 BC, as stated in Josephus and thus means 46 years from then is when Jesus was in Jerusalem for the cleansing, which would be either AD 26 or 27. The Tyndale Bulletin scholars who support AD 33 seem to ignore all this.  They fixate on Luke 3:1 and the astronomical calculations for the most part but ignore the verse regarding the 46 years. 

Other scholars have said that the construction dates aren’t that “precise”. I would reply that, that that may be so but no dates from texts of this era are that precise; as I’ve mentioned, the reign of Tiberius could be counted even from AD 11, Pontius Pilate’s time as prelate is just briefly and generally noted in Josephus, and the census of Quirinius hardly aligns with what is mentioned in Luke, and thus these dates are as precise as almost any from this era.

Finally, and along these previous lines regarding the temple is the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel which, one can argue, aligns with my theory of AD 27. There it says the prophet will be cut off after seventy weeks (a week here refers to a heptad or seven years).

“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin…. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word….” 

(“Word” in this verse is thought by some scholars to refer to the decree issued in Ezra 7, which was perhaps given in the seventh year of Artaxerxes’s (the ruler of whom many scholars believe this could be referring to) rule: “And Ezra came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. “)

“To restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. And for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.  And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off “

 Which could be 465 +7= 458 and with inclusive counting 483 years from then comes to 27 AD. Admittedly there are various ways to count and this is only one year one can end up with, such as on BibleHub who calculates to 33 AD using a different ruler, but it is plausible that it is the way I mention here.

 “I make a decree that all those of the people of Yisra’el and the priests and Lewites in my reign, who volunteer to go up to Yerushalayim, go with you.” Ezra 7:13

So in summary there are in my opinion just as many or more points to argue for an earlier crucifixion year as I have done as there are for the more popular ones you see these days. In Schaff’s day it was thought to be 30 AD generally as far as I’ve seen. The more I’ve researched this the more I don’t see why 27 AD isn't more well considered by scholars as you can make a compelling case for it. They appear to be concerned on astrological occurrences a little too much in my opinion and take specific verses too literally (for example Matthew which I didn't address here) that is strictly referencing these events.

Commonly held beliefs are tied to these sorts of notions and as we can sometimes see that these notions are tied to things that aren't necessarily verifiable in themselves and perhaps can be improved on or clarified with diligence and research. Otherwise, they may be incorrect to begin with.  Things aren't always as they are commonly held to be, not that that is the case here with what I’ve done, but it also isn't not what I haven't done. I’m not sure if that made sense logically, but it did intuitively.

I’ve also built a webpage that maps all of Jesus’s movements in the four gospels which I’ve used to help come up and double-check my theory: stephenbreighner.com/gospelmap

Bibliography

Humphreys, Colin J., and W.?G. Waddington. “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion.” Tyndale Bulletin?43:2 (1992).

Farrar, F. W. “Ezra the Scribe.” In Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, The Expositor’s Bible. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890.

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem* IV.36.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity, A.D.?1–100.

Browne, Henry. Ordo Saeclorum: A Treatise on the Chronology of the Holy Scriptures. London: John W. Parker, 1844