We need not go into the details of this proposal here; let us confine ourselves to the essentials.Jaubert bases herself primarily on two early texts, which seem to suggest a solution to the problem.The second advantage emphasized by Annie Jaubert shows at the same time the weakness of this attempted solution.She points out that the traditional chronologies (Synoptic Johannine) have to compress a whole series of events into a few hours: the hearing before the Sanhedrin, Jesus being sent over to Pilate, Pilate's wife's dream, Jesus being handed over to Herod, his return to Pilate, the scourging, the condemnation to death, the way of the Cross, and the crucifixion.She also argues that Mark gives a precise sequence of events for "Palm Sunday", Monday, and Tuesday, but then leaps directly to the Passover meal.According to the traditional dating, then, two days remain of which nothing is recounted.John, they claim, altered the chronology in order to create this theological connection, which admittedly is not made explicit in the Gospel.Today, though, it is becoming increasingly clear that John's chronology is more probable historically than the Synoptic chronology.
On the contrary: the Jewish authorities who led Jesus before Pilate's court avoided entering the praetorium, "so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" ().
Moreover, there is a comment reported by Mark that militates against this hypothesis.
He tells us that two days before the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and scribes were looking for an opportunity to bring Jesus under their control by stealth and kill him, but in this regard, they declared: "not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people" ().
To accomplish all this in the space of a few hours seems scarcely possible, according to Jaubert.
Her solution, though, provides a time frame from the night leading into Wednesday to the morning of Good Friday.