Scripture warns us that we would inherit lies, that the traditions of men will nullify his laws (Mark 7:6–13, Matthew 15:3–9, Colossians 28), and that the Pharisee sect that informs most of our understanding of how the ancient Jews allegedly interpreted Torah cannot be trusted (John 8:44), and not give heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth (Titus 1:14). We were also warned that the anti-christ spirit would seek to change the times and seasons (Daniel 7:25) and that this spirit has been at work in the world at least since the time the New Testament was written (1 John 4:3).

In spite of all of these warnings, every single attempt to date the crucifixion (whether one expects it to land on Wednesday, Thursday, or the traditional Friday) follows the same hidden pattern:

1. Assume Pharisee's Jewish traditional calendar
2. Decide the day of week the crucifixion "must" have been.
3. Eliminate all years that don't match the assumed calendar
4. Force everything else to fit regardless of how unlikely
5. Disregard all evidence, including scripture, that doesn't match

The end result is that people contort scripture, Josephus, Roman records, earthquakes, passion week, celestial signs, and anything else that they come across to fit their interpretation of the day of week — even if it takes some extremely creative interpretation, claiming of scribal error without evidence in some places, and denying them in spite of evidence in others. In the process of stretching their interpretations they impugn the credibility of their primary witnesses many times over.

This process violates at least 6 different scriptures by elevating rabbinic Jewish fables and inherited tradition to unquestionable truths, forcing unnatural interpretations of all other facts — including scripture!

That creative interpretation is called special pleading — when we bend the rules for one piece of evidence so that it will agree with a conclusion we have already decided must be true. In practice, the adoption of special pleading effectively discards inconvenient evidence, because the primary justification for the special pleading is that the prior conclusion forces an otherwise unnatural interpretation. This is also called motivated reasoning, where rules are bent to protect a preconceived conclusion from contradictory evidence.

Seeking the truth is hard work and we are all prone to cognitive biases and using unsubstantiated facts that we take for granted as being undeniable. Just like we acclimate to the smell of our own house. It is only when returning from vacation that we can smell what our visitors notice every time they visit. For over 1000 years all of society has served (aka worshiped) the 7 day planetary god week and we assume it has always been this way all the way back to creation. Furthermore, we assume the 7th day is Saturday simply because that is what our ancestors have told us.

In this environment any researcher who challenges the assumption is ignored, and thus everyone has financial and social incentive to not challenge the assumption. Are you willing to seek the truth regardless of the consequence?

Putting Assumptions to the Test

What would happen if we put these assumptions to the test, if we didn't bend every other interpretation to bow before the day of Saturn? That is what this book will explore.

Suppose all of the other facts, interpreted without special pleading, point decisively to the year of the cross occurring in 32 AD with 99% certainty. This would put Passover on a Monday, which is fundamentally incompatible with the biblical account when you assume the traditional calendar.

Suppose we identify other Biblical events that occurred on a weekly sabbath or known day of the week, such as the week manna fell in Exodus, the day First Fruits was observed in Exodus and Joshua, or the day the first and second temples fell?

The question then becomes whether the abundant qualitative and quantitative evidence for the cross in 32 AD and other dated events is enough to overcome the claimed "absence of evidence" that supports minority calendar positions. Consider that the number of pre-70 AD quotes that unambiguously refer to a continuous 7 day cycle being observed it is shockingly few and the links to Saturday are even fewer. This book will address every quote we can find so that you can see how little primary evidence exists for the traditional calendar week assumption.

We know there were a half dozen different calendars in use at the time of Yeshua and we would expect a Pareto distribution in surviving documents. In any historical period with multiple competing calendars, document production and survival almost never distribute evenly: a small minority of groups (often ~20% or less) generate the vast majority (~80% or more) of texts that end up preserved. In 1st-century Judea, the groups that left the largest surviving footprint (Pharisees, diaspora communities, later rabbinic circles) overwhelmingly used the empirical lunisolar calendar we now call the "traditional" Jewish calendar. The Temple priesthood itself, however, was a relatively small, elite, centrally-located institution that produced far fewer day-to-day documents than scattered scribes, synagogues, and private individuals across the empire. Furthermore, the documents that were produced were destroyed in 70 AD with the loss of the temple.

Given how few documents have survived that document the majority position, even if a large minority calendar was officially observed by the Temple priests, we would not expect to see much evidence of it. This is especially true when the majority is actively hostile to minority positions. They either passively neglect reproducing or actively destroy opposing records. It is therefore a logical fallacy to assert that absence of explicit evidence is evidence of absence in this situation.

The doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them… But this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.

— Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, 1:4)

All of that said, the Bible provides all the evidence we need to determine the true calendar when one reads it carefully and without the tainted traditions inherited by the Jews. This literal reading that relies only on the Bible is therefore the most likely reading supported by elite Sadducees (those of greatest dignity) that do not regard anything but what scripture requires of them (according to Josephus). Thus, rather than a "lack of evidence" we actually have the strongest possible evidence of an alternative calendar straight from scripture.

The issue we face that the Pharisaic Jews have nullified scripture with their creative interpretations and dismissals and we accept their word over the plain reading.

You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many other similar things.

— Mark 7:13

Pastors tell us to trust the Jews, that they know what God really meant, and that they have kept the oral tradition which passed down critical context missing from the scriptures. Most Christians assume the Jews were rigorous when it comes to keeping Torah and the commandments because they are ignorant to the difference between the Oral Torah (aka, the tradition of the elders, human tradition, dogma, ordinances, decrees) and the instruction of God found in the written scriptures. It is this oral dogma that Yeshua tells us nullified, or made no effect, the written scripture.

Because most Christians assume the problem with the Pharisaic Jews is that they were "too legalistic" and "too strict" in following God's commands they cannot imagine that in their zeal they nullified and perverted the very commands of God they claim to follow in favor of their tradition. In light of this, the primary witness used by the majority cannot be trusted. In fact, scripture commands us not to trust them:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

— Mark 7:6-13

You (Pharisees) are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

— John 8:44

Therefore rebuke them (Pharisees from Circumcision Party) sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.

— Titus 1:13-14

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

— Colossians 2:8

If scripture declares a particular sect to be sons of the father of lies, how can we accept any testimony from this sect? Are we to presume that they can be trusted on some things but not others? How can we know which things can be trusted and which cannot?

Scripture gives us the answer: test all things and hold to that which is good. Now here is the real challenge: how do you test the traditions that we have received? I contend that scripture gives us everything we need to prove God's calendar beyond reasonable doubt and that we cannot let extra-biblical oral traditions taint how we view the scriptures. The fact that scripture explicitly tells us to not pay attention to these oral traditions should be the first warning sign.

Extra-Biblical Evidence

The first and most frequent objection to considering any other calendar is the "lack of evidence" from outside the Bible. This book will definitively disprove that assertion, but lets first test the validity of the argument itself. Suppose there was an ancient historian that provided a detailed description of an alternative calendar that contradicted the traditional Jewish calendar. What then?

We cannot simply pick and choose historical sources based upon our subjective feelings nor can we assume that lack of extra-biblical confirmation of alternative calendars validates the surviving Jewish tradition. Consider how this line of argument has played out many times over:

Existence of King David and his dynasty — Once dismissed by many scholars as legendary or mythical (no extra-biblical evidence existed for a significant "united monarchy" around 1000 BC), the Tel Dan Stele (discovered 1993) provided the first extra-biblical reference to the "House of David," confirming his historical existence and lineage.

Existence of Pontius Pilate — As Roman prefect of Judea who sentenced Jesus, his role was questioned by some due to limited non-biblical mentions; the Pilate Stone (discovered 1961 in Caesarea Maritima) is an inscription bearing his name and title, confirming him as a real historical figure.

Hittites as a major empire — The Bible describes them as a powerful people (e.g., Genesis 23, 2 Samuel 11), but 19th-century critics called them fictional due to no known records; excavations at Hattusa (late 19th/early 20th century) uncovered thousands of Hittite tablets and ruins, proving they were a real ancient superpower.

Belshazzar as king of Babylon — Mentioned in Daniel 5 as the last Babylonian ruler, he was long considered fictional by critics (no records named him king); Nabonidus Cylinder inscriptions (discovered 19th century) confirmed Belshazzar as co-regent under his father Nabonidus, matching the biblical account.

King Hezekiah's tunnel and actions — His water tunnel in Jerusalem (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32) and Assyrian siege were doubted; the Siloam Inscription (found 1880) describes the tunnel's construction, and Assyrian records (e.g., Sennacherib's annals) confirm the 701 BC siege of Jerusalem.

Existence of Quirinius as governor during Jesus' birth — Luke 2's census under Quirinius was challenged as an anachronism; inscriptions and records confirmed his governorship and a related census/enrollment in 2 BC

Pool of Bethesda's five porticoes — John 5 describes a pool with five colonnades in Jerusalem, doubted as unhistorical; excavations uncovered the pool's remains with exactly five porticoes (or portico-like divisions), confirming the description.

King Shishak's invasion of Judah — 1 Kings 14/2 Chronicles 12 records Pharaoh Shishak plundering Jerusalem; Karnak Temple reliefs (discovered 19th century) list his campaign into Judah, naming cities matching the biblical account.

Existence of Edomite/Israelite advanced organization in David's era — Minimal evidence led to doubts about a united monarchy; recent finds at Timna Valley mines show advanced, wealthy operations (copper smelting) in the 10th century BC, supporting organized kingdoms without large permanent structures.

Given this track record, demanding an extra-biblical confirmation of something that can be derived from the Bible itself is a major fallacy. When it comes to something as basic as "describe the phase of the moon that starts the month?", you will be told "the Bible doesn't say", which you will come to find out is far from the truth. What they really mean is, "the Bible doesn't describe a dark or sliver moon"; therefore, it "doesn't say" anything that confirms the tradition we assume to be true.

It is the alleged silence of the Bible that causes some people to adopt extra-biblical books like The Book of Jubilees or The Book Enoch to understand the calendar, they then pair these sources with the Dead Sea Scrolls and derive solar calendars that contradict Jewish tradition. These texts even address the calendar dispute going back over 2000 years. Since these sources cannot be denied, we are left with multiple candidate calendars and using the Bible alone to test the calendars for truth. The fallacy most people fall into is the false dichotomy of assuming you must pick one of these ancient calendars simply because there exists extra-biblical evidence for it. In reality what we may be witnessing is the documentation of ancient heresies; therefore, we must consider the possibility that all extra-biblical texts are wrong in part or in whole.