ar ▁calendar ), ▁and ▁( b ) ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁modern ▁surv iving ▁small ▁community ▁of ▁Sam ar it ans ▁did ▁not ▁reve al ▁the ▁calculations ▁underlying ▁their ▁lun ar ▁calendar ▁( pres erving ▁the ▁Egypt ian ▁reck oning ) ▁to ▁out s iders ▁until ▁the ▁ 1 9 6 0 s . ▁ ▁In ▁a ▁review ▁of ▁Hum ph re ys ' ▁book , ▁the olog ian ▁William ▁R ▁T elf ord ▁points ▁out ▁that ▁the ▁non - astr onom ical ▁parts ▁of ▁his ▁argument ▁are ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁assumption ▁that ▁the ▁chron ologies ▁described ▁in ▁the ▁New ▁Testament ▁are ▁historical ▁and ▁based ▁on ▁e y ew it ness ▁testim ony . ▁In ▁doing ▁so , ▁T elf ord ▁says , ▁Hum ph re ys ▁has ▁built ▁an ▁argument ▁upon ▁uns ound ▁prem ises ▁which ▁" does ▁violence ▁to ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁bib lic al ▁texts , ▁whose ▁mixture ▁of ▁fact ▁and ▁fiction , ▁tradition ▁and ▁re da ction , ▁history ▁and ▁myth ▁all ▁make ▁the ▁rig id ▁application ▁of ▁the ▁scientific ▁tool ▁of ▁astronom y ▁to ▁their ▁put ative ▁data ▁a ▁mis const ru ed ▁enter prise ." ▁ ▁Res urre ction ▁" on ▁the ▁third ▁day " ▁After ▁the ▁cru c if ix ion , ▁the ▁G osp els ▁report ▁the ▁discovery ▁of ▁Jesus ' ▁empty ▁tomb , ▁and ▁subsequently ▁the ▁G osp els ▁and ▁Paul ▁provide ▁accounts ▁of ▁Jesus ' ▁res urre ction . ▁A ▁potential ▁chron ological ▁contradiction ▁ar ises ▁in ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁res