The Date of the Death of Jesus
Further Reflections
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4981187 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel J Lasker (0000-0002-9096-318X, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 124 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 95 |
| Publication date | 2004-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of the American Oriental Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0003-0279 • E-ISSN: 2169-2289 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/4132156 |
| OpenAlex | W2334557376 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
In his thought-provoking and convincing article, The Date of Death of Jesus of Nazareth (JAOS 122 [2002]: 466-80), Leo Depuydt argues that the most plausible date for the crucifixion is 18 March, 29 c.E. This date was generally accepted until the beginning of the twentieth century, at which time it came under attack on the basis of the assumed impossibility that the first day of a Hebrew month could begin before the sighting of the first crescent. I Since the Friday of the crucifixion allegedly fell on or about the full moon, and since Nisan can fall in either March or April, it follows that, if the crucifixion was in 29 c.E., it occurred on either 18 March or 15 April. Furthermore, since the Gospels are unclear as to whether the crucifixion was on 14 Nisan or 15 Nisan, if the crucifixion was in 29 c.E., then the first day of Nisan that year could have been 4 March, 5 March, 1 April, or 2 April. Comparing the lunar conjunction with first-crescent visibility, and assuming that the first day of the month cannot precede first-crescent visibility, it would follow that none of those dates could have been 1 Nisan. Therefore, it was concluded that the crucifixion could not have been in the previously accepted year of 29 c.E. Depuydt argues that the assumption that first-crescent visibility must precede the first day of the lunar month is false, and that therefore 29 c.E. remains a possible year of the crucifixion. Indeed, in light of other sources, 29 C.E. would be the most plausible year, as was previously thought. Furthermore, preference is given to Friday, 18 March, as the actual date of Jesus' death. This note is intended to strengthen Depuydt's argumentation, while correcting some inaccuracies which have crept into his discussion
Ancient history · Cartography · Fell · Geography · Hebrew · Impossibility · Meteorology · Political science · Sociology · Theology · Visibility · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classics · Demography · Historical Astronomy and Related Studies · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · History · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.08 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2013 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |