Colin J. Humphreys

The book offers a solution to the difficulties of the timing of the events of passion week. There are disparities between the timetable in John’s gospel and the synoptics to say nothing of the number of different trials that seem to be fitted into the short time between Jesus arrest after the last supper and his crucifixion at 9am on Good Friday morning. It also suggests a date for the crucifixion.

The latter is worked out using modern computing and astronomical knowledge to calculate the phases of the moon between AD 26 and 36. Passover has to be half way through the spring month and on a Thursday or perhaps Friday. With an astrophysicist he has worked out the dates for those years and can eliminate the years when the dates are not Thursday or Friday. After various other factors are introduced he narrows it down further. All this was written up in the journal Nature!

The writer, Colin Humphreys, is a knight of the realm but that is I imagine for his work as professor of material Science at Cambridge University. He does his bible research in his spare time.

As a taster to his methods see chapter 5 where he points out that Luke specifies the date that John the Baptist started his ministry, Luke 3 1-3, this was AD 29 at the earliest more likely AD 30. So assuming Jesus had 2 years ministry the earliest date for crucifixion is AD 31. He takes John 2 20 46 years building the temple to be 46 years since inner sanctuary built taking us to AD 30 at the time of that argument with the Jews, (although that rather takes away the force of the Jews reply to Jesus.)

Be that as it may the main force of Humphrey’s argument is that the gospels can be reconciled as they are using different calendars. The previous Pope came to the same conclusion a few years ago saying that the calendar they were using in Qumran would solve the problem but this writer does not think that is the case.

Apparently different groups in Palestine at the time worked on different calendars, and furthermore some people used two different calendars at the same time, a political and a religious.

The author thinks that before the exile the Jews would have used an Egyptian calendar, starting at daybreak, with the month counting from the disappearance of the old moon. After the exile they had adopted the Babylonian calendar with the day starting at sunset and the month counting from the first appearance of the new moon.

If Jesus and others reverted to the old calendar then this explains Mark14 12 “On the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover Lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him “Where do you want us to go and make the preparations” the day begins in the morning.

It means that he was arrested late Wednesday night and they assessed things first with the previous high priest Annas then had the proper trial before Caiaphas on Thursday in daytime, then confirmed that next day first thing before moving him on to Pilate and Herod on Friday morning. John in his gospel is using the Jewish official calendar so says in John 13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Jesus would actually sacrifice the lamb a day early on his pre-exilic calendar and the majority of the Jews would be sacrificing next day, at the time of the crucifixion.
Jewish law said that capital trials should be in daylight and the verdict confirmed next day, it has always been thought that they ignored the rules for Jesus, but this allows the rule to continue.

The book seems to offer important new insights in the dabate about the differing gospel account.… (mehr)

I like math. I like science. And I like the Bible. So this book is just perfect for me; it’s by a serious scientist from Cambridge University, England, and it’s about a really serious study of a famous story in the Bible.

Actually, Colin Humphreys is more than “just” a serious scientist. He’s the sort of person who will take a trip to the Red Sea to investigate whether his theories might be true. And then he’ll write about the trip in a gently personal style, giving the reader a chance to share his excitement in his discoveries.

Have you heard the story that the Red Sea crossing really happened in a sort of muddy puddle? I remember learning that the ancient Hebrew texts read “Reed Sea” or lake rather than Red Sea, but Humphreys asks the rather obvious question, why was it ever mistranslated. After all, the Hebrews who wrote, read, and presumably believed “Reed Sea” are the self-same people, centuries before Christ, who translated their own words into Greek, rendering the Hebrew “Reed Sea” into “Red” in Greek. Is it more logical to assume they made a very English mis-translation, or that the two names referred to the same body of water, much as Netherlands and Holland both refer to the same country? Of course, if that’s the case, there should be part of the Red Sea that’s both red and reedy, and so he takes a trip…

I loved the lively, enthusiastic text. I loved the rigorous but comfortably explained logic. I loved the sense of adventure as each step in the Exodus journey became something real and relatable, even the plagues of Egypt, even the smoke on the mountain. And I found myself in awe, rather like the disciples when Jesus calmed the waves, of a God who could so perfectly control nature.

Of course, the alternative conclusion is that an awful lot of coincidences led to either the real events of the Exodus, or the imagined events being so scientifically plausible and verifiable. I like simple conclusions, and I view the author’s analysis as pointing to the actions of God. But the reader is never told what to believe. A true scientist, Professor Humphreys lets the evidence speak for itself and keeps his personal opinions out of the way.

After reading this book, I can finally imagine a version of Exodus that makes sense. I’ve wanted for so many years to touch that column of fire and smoke. Now I know why I can’t, and the answer truly delights me.… (mehr)