I used Wikipedia because it was readily available.
Look, I gave the Orthodox Christian version of the Passion sequence. It follows John 19:14. Catholics and protestants follow the Synoptics.
I gave the full daily sequence which is straight-forward and consistent with Jewish practice - I provided the link -
one more time - below. You can get huffy all you want.
Your way results in inconsistencies with Jewish practice, or improbable outcomes such as Jesus at a Last Supper that is a seder and BEFORE He is killed. My way, the Orthodox way, Christ is the Paschal Lamb. And there is a 3 day Resurrection.
Wednesday Calendar 13 evening -- Nissan 14 beginning -- Last Supper -- Leavened bread on table " 'Passover' begins"
Thursday Calendar 14 afternoon -- Nissan 14 afternoon -- Lamb was killed (Passover sacrifice); Chametz burnt; Jesus was killed, placed in tomb
Thursday Calendar 14 evening -- Nissan 15 beginning -- Festival of Matzot -- lamb, unleavened bread, herbs - Passover for 7 days
Friday (Preparation) Calendar 15 evening - 1 day in the tomb completed
Saturday (Sabbath) Calendar 16 evening - 2 days in the tomb completed
Sunday (1st Day) Calendar 17 morning - The women come to the Tomb; Resurrection revealed
Any other reckoning has Christ in the tomb for less than 2 days - Jewish and Roman basis.
So, I'll take the Orthodox Church's 1770? years against your 30 years. I don't want you to concede anything. I do want you to recognize that what I have presented is accepted by 25 per cent + of Christianity for 1770 (depends where you consider authoritative starting point) years.
So, on to this . . .
This is the actual, documented way the Passover occurred according to the Bible, the Talmud, and numerous other Hebrew sources:
The date, as I assume you already know, divides at sunset. Sunset is the beginning of a new calendar date. The Passover is from the 15th to the 21st, seven days. On the day of the 13th of Nisan, as the sun gets close to setting, at the time considered a "twilight" period of the 13th, the first search for leaven is made. When the sun fully sets, it becomes the 14th, calendrically. In the morning on the day of the 14th, just before the sun rises, considered a "twilight" period of the 14th, the second search for leaven is made. Around 11:00 in the morning, a final search for leaven is made. Then at noon, all leaven is burned and destroyed. It is no longer lawful to possess it until after noon on the 21st.
Following the burning of all leaven at noon, the lambs are sacrificed at about 3:00 in the afternoon. This is considered the evening, which is defined in rabbinic literature as any time after noon, as the sun begins to move towards the western horizon. This day, the 14th of Nisan, is referred to as the Eve of the Passover. It is never, ever, in any work I've ever read, referred to as the Preparation of the Passover. The colloquial nomenclature is the Eve of the Passover. And this is appropriate, since the Passover is the 15th. In the Exodus story, they killed the lambs on the 14th and put the blood on the door posts and lintels. They then departed out of Egypt on the 15th.
On the 15th of Nisan, they celebrated with the Hagigah, also referred to as the Passover of the 15th. It was an obligatory festive offering.
Deuteronomy 16:2 — Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to place his name there.
As the Talmud notes, and which is correct, the Passover of the 14th can't come from the herd (the cattle). It has to be from the flock (lambs and kids of the goats). This is a separate sacrifice, and the Jews discharged this duty on the 15th.
See also this excerpt by Dr. Alfred Edersheim:
"Few expressions have given rise to more earnest controversy than this. On two things at least we can speak with certainty. Entrance into a heathen house
did Levitically render impure for that day—that is, till the evening. The fact of such defilement is clearly attested both in the New Testament (Acts 10:28) and in the Mishnah, though its reasons might be various (Ohol. 18.7; Tohar. 7.3). A person who had so become Levitically unclean was technically called
Tebhul Yom (‘bathed of the day’). The other point is, that, to have so become ‘impure’ for the day, would
not have disqualified for eating the Paschal Lamb, since the meal was partaken of
after the evening, and when a new day had begun. In fact, it is distinctly laid down (Pes. 92a) that the ‘bathed of the day,’ that is, he who had been impure for the day and had bathed in the evening,
did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is related, when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem ‘immersed,’ and ate the Paschal Lamb. It follows that those Sanhedrists could not have abstained from entering the Palace of Pilate because by so doing they would have been disqualified for the Paschal Supper.
The point is of importance, because many writers have interpreted the expression ‘the Passover’ as referring to the Paschal Supper, and have argued that, according to the Fourth Gospel, our Lord did not on the previous evening partake of the Paschal Lamb, or else that in this respect the account of the Fourth Gospel does not accord with that of the Synoptists. But as, for the reason just stated, it is impossible to refer the expression ‘Passover’ to the Paschal Supper, we have only to inquire whether the term is not also applied to other offerings. And here both the Old Testament (Deut. 16:1-3; 2 Chron. 35:1, 2, 6, 18) and Jewish writings show, that the term
Pesach, or ‘Passover,’ was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to what was called the
Chagigah, or festive offering (from
Chag, or
Chagag, to bring the festive sacrifice usual at each of the three Great Feasts).’ According to the express rule (Chag. 1.3) the
Chagigah was brought on the first festive Paschal Day. It was offered immediately after the morning-service, and eaten on that day—probably some time before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony claimed public attention. We can therefore quite understand that,
not on the eve of the Passover, but on the first Paschal day, the Sanhedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the evening, would not only have involved them in the inconvenience of Levitical defilement on the first festive day, but have actually prevented their offering on that day the Passover, festive sacrifice, or
Chagigah. For, we have these two express rules: that a person could not in Levitical defilement offer the
Chagigah: and that the
Chagigah could not be offered for a person by some one else who took his place (Jer. Chag. 76a, lines 16 to 14 from bottom). These considerations and canons seem decisive as regards the views above expressed. There would have been no reason to fear ‘defilement’ on the morning of the Paschal Sacrifice; but entrance into the
Praetorium on the morning of the first Passover-day would have rendered it impossible for them to offer the
Chagigah, which is also designated by the term
Pesach." (Alfred Edersheim, 5.14, in
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 865-66).
There are a number of points I would make.
First, I have always argued that the gospels are in agreement. From my perspective, if one views the Bible from a faith point of view, declaring it the infallible word of God, then to admit to so blatant a contradiction amongst the authoritative eye-witness accounts is to discredit them entirely. Alternately, if one views it from a secular or logical point of view, common sense would still rule out the likelihood that the four gospel narratives are telling a different story.
To put it into its logical perspective, you have to realize that suggesting that the gospels disagree on a point of this magnitude—that there is a contradiction concerning the chronology of the Passion—is the same as saying that these men didn’t remember the major facts of their own personal tragedy and conviction clearly. The apostles were all there when Jesus was arrested, and they were all well aware of when he was crucified, and it was a significantly personal and emotional tragedy for all of them.
If your mother, whom you have loved all your life, died on Christmas Eve, you would never forget that it was Christmas Eve. Even at the age of eighty, you would still remember that she died on Christmas Eve. If she instead died on Christmas day, you would likewise remember for the rest of your life that she died on Christmas day. The idea that one of the apostles got their facts mixed up concerning the Passover or the day after the Passover is about as ridiculous as saying that you remember that your mother died on Christmas day, but your brother, because it’s been thirty years, mistakenly remembers that she died on Christmas Eve. It’s absurd. If your mother died on Thursday, June 18th, perhaps you could forget the exact day or date over time since the day and date has no other significance, but when someone important to you dies on a landmark day, that’s not something you forget.
Just to illustrate the point, I can tell you that my father-in-law passed away on April 14th. I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head how many years ago it happened. I couldn’t tell you how old he was. But I know the date because it was my wife’s birthday, which was also the same date Lincoln was shot. Twenty years from now, I’ll still be able to tell you the date, because he passed away on what is, to me, a landmark date.
Jesus was, to these men, as close as any parent, sibling, or spouse. They loved him to the point of death. To suggest that one of them would make a mistake between the two dates is irrational and unrealistic. We’re supposed to believe that people in key positions, who were there at the end, can’t remember whether it was on the Passover or the day after? We’re supposed to believe that they can’t remember whether they ate the Passover with Jesus at the Last Supper or just an ordinary meal? We’re supposed to believe that they can’t remember these things even though they “remembered” and commemorated the Last Supper every single year, passing down the tradition that we today call Easter to all new converts? As we say here in the south, “that dog don’t hunt.” It defies all logic and common sense.
Ultimately, there are only four ways of looking at this issue. We can say that John is right, and the Synoptics are wrong. We can say that the Synoptics are right, and John is wrong. We can say that John is right, and that the Last Supper in the Synoptics harmonizes with a Nisan 14th crucifixion in some way we’re not seeing. Or, we can say that the Synoptics are right, and the crucifixion in John harmonizes with them in a similarly unrecognized way.
If we conclude that either John or the Synoptics is “right” while the other is “wrong,” then we are admitting to a contradiction, championing an absurd and illogical conclusion, and undermining our faith. The entire endeavor would be for naught. If the eye-witnesses can’t be counted on for accuracy on a point that should be logically uniform across the four accounts, then their accounts aren’t worth the vellum or papyrus they’re written on. It is my personal conviction that there is no contradiction. There is no, “this one is right,” while, “that one is wrong.” My own faith notwithstanding, I find the notion of a contradiction on this specific subject matter to be highly illogical, as already mentioned.
Therefore, logically eliminating two of our options, that leaves us with the options of harmonization. Either John is accurate and the Synoptics, despite the unambiguous nature of their narratives, somehow harmonize with John, or the Synoptics are right and John, equally unambiguous, somehow harmonizes with the Synoptics. The question is, which harmonizes with which?
Relative to this perspective, the Synoptics point blank state that the afternoon leading up to the last supper was the first day of unleavened bread, and the day when the passover was killed. The Synoptics point blank state that Peter and John went and made ready the passover. Jesus stated point blank that he would keep the passover at the goodman's house. They ate the passover. It's not debatable. Three gospels state it beyond all rational argument. There is no way to harmonize this with the 13th of the month. Period. The version you've given is not correct. It defies the plain statements of three gospels.
So, that leaves the question of whether John can be harmonized with the Synoptics. And the plain fact of the matter is that it can be.
