1
The Passion Chronology Do all four Gospels tell the Same Story?
C.M. Hegg
[Note to the Reader: This is the first chapter in a longer work that I am currently working on. Since the chronology debates continue to be a main topic of discussion among
believers I felt it appropriate to release this chapter.]
When discussing the Last Supper it is only natural to begin with the debate over the chronology and nature of the meal. Many books and much scholarship has been dedicated to this specific aspect of the Last Supper. So much so that Charles C. Torrey wrote:
It might seem to be a duty to apologize for renewing discussion of this worn-out subject, where the ground has been raked over and over, and the question is generally regarded as closed. The raking process has not been finally prohibited…”1
Torrey penned these words in 1931. Yet, scholarship continues to work on the seeming problems found between the narratives and has made significant advancements within the past 80 years. Due to the vast amount of work on the chronology of the Last Supper, my approach here will be to lay out the Passion chronology as describe by the synoptic tradition and show how the “problematic” portions of John can be viewed as perfectly harmonious with the Synoptic tradition. My chronological views follow those of many scholars, but have specifically been collated and expanded by scholars such as Tim Hegg2 and more recently Dr. Brant Pitre.3 This position, which Dr. Pitre has titled the “Passover Hypotheses,”4 argues the Last Supper is in fact a Passover Meal. While numerous proposals have been made on the chronology of the Last Supper, several stand out as the most common. Joachim Jeremias sights three main views that scholars have taken on this issue. (1) The Johannine hypothesis, i.e. that John’s account is correct and Jesus and His disciples were not eating a Passover Meal, but were rather, partaking in a farewell covenant meal that took place on Nisan 13. (2) The Synoptic hypothesis, i.e. that the Synoptic accounts are correct and Jesus and His disciples were
1 Charles C. Torrey, “The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel” JBL, Vol 50, No. 4 (1931), p. 227
2
in fact eating a Passover Meal. (3) The “two meals” hypothesis, i.e. that both John and the Synoptics are correct resulting in two different meals being described, one in the Synoptics which is a Passover meal, and one in John that is a farewell meal.5 Brant Pitre also sights three main positions (not including his own position, i.e. the Passover Hypothesis) that various scholars have taken, they are (1) The Johannine hypothesis,6 (2) the Synoptic hypothesis,7 and (3) the Essene hypothesis,8 i.e. that the Synoptic accounts of the last supper are following a solar calendar put forward by the Essenes, while John is using the lunar calendar held by the Temple officials. Both Jeremias and Pitre address the problems within these four theories. The two hypothesis that I find to be the most common have the same issue pointed in opposite directions. Those who hold to the Johannine hypothesis must disregard the earlier accounts given within the Synoptics which clearly place the last supper on Nisan 14, while those who hold to the Synoptic hypothesis do not adequately deal with the passages in John that seems to locate Jesus’ death on Nisan 14, thus placing the Last Supper on Nisan 13. Both theories find fault with the other witness(es) on various grounds, suggesting theological reasons for the discrepancies, and making the accounts seem irreconcilable.
The problem for us is not to reconcile the Gospels. They are irreconcilable. The problem which confronts us is how did such a contradiction arise among the disciples of Jesus at such an early period? I have pointed out elsewhere, that the contradiction between the Synoptic and non-Synoptic Gospels is not based on history, but rather on ideology.9
While some might find the Gospel accounts to be at odds with each other, I believe this position has not taken all of the available evidence into consideration.
John and the Synoptics The earliest written witness we have of the Lord’s Supper is Paul’s words
5 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press, 1977), p. 21 6 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 281 7 Ibid. p. 314 8 Ibid. p. 260 9 Solomon Zeitlin, “The last Supper as an Ordinary Meal in the Fourth Gospel”, in
JQR Vol. 42, No. 3, University of Pennsylvania 1952, p. 260
3
in 1 Cor. 11:23-25.10 Paul writes this approximately twenty years after Jesus spoke them, but Paul tells us in verse 23 that: “I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” We are not told how Paul “παρλαβον” (received) but only that he received the tradition π το κυρου (from the Lord). Since Paul and the Synoptic accounts date long before John’s Gospel, it might seem odd that some favor John’s narrative over and against a later witness. James Dunn argues that the “synoptics focus on Jesus’ mission in Galilee, the bulk of John’s narrative focuses on Judaea and Jerusalem.”11 With regard to overlap period, Dunn argues that John’s account should not be viewed as inferior:
But we can be sufficiently confident that the Johannine tradition too goes back to the first disciples, and indeed, in this case, has retained a clearer memory of the overlap period than we could have deduced from the Synoptic tradition. A simple uniform rule that the Synoptic tradition is always more reliable than John’s is immediately ruled out. John’s version of the beginning of Jesus’ mission is itself an example of how the memory of that overlap was handled in at least one strand of earliest Christianity or in some churches.12
Dunn goes on to show multiple examples of John’s account to be more specific and/or longer in order to make narrative or theology clearer. Thus, although John’s account may have been written later, it seems that his tradition (with the help of his memory) is quite early. This reasoning may help when attempting to harmonize the four Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Since John was a first hand witness to the narrative, the overlap material should perhaps be seen not as a “new” or “different” account, but as a clarification or flushing out of a specific aspect of the story. If true, John should be approached as harmonious with the Synoptics instead of assuming he is presenting a contradictory narrative.
The author of the Fourth Gospel here plainly takes it for granted (as in the many other instances which are exclaimed over by the commentators) that his readers are familiar with the accounts given by Mark and Matthew, and merely supplements them. The
10 I am taking the common view for dating the witnesses. 1Cor. 53-57ce, Mark 60- 65ce, Matthew 60-65ce, Luke 60-70ce, John 90-110ce; see, Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Inter-Varsity, 1970), p. 441; H. Wayne House, Chronologi- cal and Background Charts of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1981), p. 127-128
11 James D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Vol. 3 (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 320 12 Ibid., p. 321 Original author’s emphasis
4
desire of Jesus to eat the paschal meal with his disciples, the facts relating to their preparation for the feast, and the institution of the Eucharist, were matters of common knowledge and therefore unnecessary to repeat; as this author elsewhere (very wisely) omits narrative material quite indispensable for the full understanding of his account, because it has already been doubly or trebly provided. Thus at the very beginning of his gospel he takes for granted the story of the baptism of Jesus, and merely gives in 1 32f. an allusion which demands the readers’ familiarity with the Synoptists.13
Few scholars would dispute that the Fourth Gospel presupposes that the readers are acquainted with the Synoptic tradition. To cite one example, the apostles are abruptly introduced as ‘the twelve’ without further definition, and it is clearly assumed that the readers will know who they were. The scanty inclusion of snippits from Mark and Luke (if this is what the author did) could not be construed as too undignified for an apostle. Indeed, it may have been designed to jog the readers’ memory of what they already knew.14
If John assumed the reader’s familiarity with the Synoptics, it seems unrealistic that the writer would give a contradictory report of the Passion chronology without making comment to reconcile or explain the discrepancies. Rather, the author of this account expected his readers to, not only, be familiar with the Synoptic accounts but to be acquainted with the language he is employing within his own account of the narrative. Language that continues to mislead scholarship today.
Recent Suggestions on The Last Supper Recent scholarship has brought new suggestions to this debate that help stack the evidence for the Passover Hypothesis. Notably, Tim Hegg collated several key proposals and began to show the first century language of the New Testament to be misunderstood within modern scholarship.15 Brant Pitre went a step further bringing the Passover Hypothesis into full focus by
13 Charles C. Torrey, “The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel” JBL, Vol 50, No. 4 (1931), p. 229-230
14 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Inter-Varsity 1970, p. 254; it should be noted that although Guthrie suggests most scholars would agree John assumes his readers are familiar with the Synoptics, some question how familiar his John’s audience would actually be. See, I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Sup- per (Eerdmans, 1980), p. 70
15 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 (TorahResource, 2008), p. 469ff
5
meticulously showing the word πσχα (Pascha) had four meanings in first century Judaisms.16 Pitre rightfully contends that πσχα could be understood to mean 1) The Passover Lamb17 2) the Passover meal,18 3) the Passover Peace Offering,19 and 4) the seven day feast of “unleavened bread” (i.e. Nisan 15-21).20 With these proposals firmly established within Eucharistic studies the four Gospel accounts can now be viewed as harmonious. Scholars who hold to the Johannine chronology have sometimes suggested that what seems like specific dating of Nisan 14 in the Synoptic Gospels is actually a much less specific term.21 Yet this argument drastically misses the mark. Perhaps the strongest evidence that the Last Supper was a Passover meal is found in the Synoptics themselves in which all three place the day the disciples are preparing for the Last Supper on the “first day of unleavened bread” and two of these accounts specifically mention this to be the day the Pascha was sacrificed:
Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover? (Matthew 26:17)
On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they were sacrificing the Passover lambs, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” (Mark 14:12)
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. (Luke 22:7)
All three accounts identify this day as the “first day of Unleavened Bread.” On this phrase used by the synoptics Hegg states:
Here, the “first day of Unleavened Bread” (Matt: Τ δ πρτ τν ζμων; Mk: Κα τ πρτ μρ τν ζμων; Lk: λθεν δ μρα τν ζμων) is clearly the 14th of Nisan, since it is the day on which the Pesach lambs were sacrificed. That the 14th of Nisan is referred to as the “first day of Unleavened Bread” is not unusual, since by noon on the 14th, all leaven was to be removed from homes and burned. Moreover, in the 1st Century the terms
16 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 331ff 17 Ibid., p. 334 18 Ibid., p. 335 19 Ibid., p. 336 20 Ibid., p. 338; I suggest a fifth meaning of the word Pascha, see p. 26 below. 21 Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D.
100, (Fortress Press, 1968) p. 180-181.
6
“Feast of Unleavened Bread” (chag haMatzot) and “Passover” were used interchangeably (cf. Lk 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching”).22
Matthew clarifies the term with the disciples question “Where do you want us to prepare the Passover” (πσχα). As previously stated Pitre shows πσχα (pascha) can have at least four meanings, all four meanings would place this day within the Passover week and thus the suggestion that this narrative took place on Nisan 13 is impossible. Yet, with regard to this passage, we are not forced to guess between four meanings of the word πσχα since the witness of Mark and Luke clarify which meaning Matthew is taking by telling us it is the day the πσχα θυον (Passover was sacrificed). Those who oppose the Synoptic hypothesis attempt to deal with these verses in interesting ways. For instance, Bo Reicke attempts to deal with Mark and Luke’s assertion that it was the day the Passover lambs were sacrificed by suggesting the writers were attempting to inform a “wider circle of readers” by sighting this day (Nisan 14) as a catch all for the festival time.23 Reicke preposes this was a kind of “nontechnical dating” (perhaps like saying the “Christmas season” in modern times), and Jesus’ Last Supper was a “covenant meal” that actually took place on the evening of Nisan 13. He reaches this conclusion due to what he sees as a lack of the Passover lamb at the table:
Surprisingly, however, this nocturnal common meal was so structured that Jesus announced his coming betrayal and, with that in mind, established a new sacrificial covenant (Matt. 26:20- 29 and parallels). Here again we must avoid any mechanical association with Jewish concepts. In fact, not one word in the Synoptic accounts suggests that for the Last Supper Jesus had a Passover lamb slain and roasted (Páscha in Luke 22:15 f. does not refer to a lamb but to the meal; only on this interpretation are the following words comprehensible: “I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled”). The absence of all mention of a lamb can hardly be dismissed as accidental; for in view of the many ceremonial details of the account, such carelessness with regard to a major aspect of the Passover festival would be most strange.24
Reicke misses the mark on several points. First, the suggestion that we
22 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 (TorahResource, 2008), p. 470
23 Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100 (Fortress Press, 1968), p. 181
24 Ibid., p. 181-182
7
should “avoid” any association with Jewish concepts is simply wrong. Jesus was a Jewish teacher with Jewish disciples that were living and teaching in a Jewish setting. Second, Reicke specifically points to a passage in Luke where the writer references the πσχα as a sacrifice (v. 7), yet tells us the lamb is absent. Third, if the meal that was eaten by Jesus and His disciples was not a Passover meal, but simply a covenant meal that took place on the 13th of Nisan, why is it referred to as the “πσχα” (pasha)? The idea that this was not a Passover meal, but is called one anyway (Luke 22:15) is not logical. Fourth, the idea that the Gospel writers make reference to a specific day and we should assume both writers are attempting to use nontechnical dating so not to confuse the wider audience is not supported by any other data we have of such practice. Fifth, Jesus and His disciples left Bethany and go to Jerusalem. If the Last Supper was a love meal, and was not a Passover meal, why would they leave the place they were staying in order to go to an overly crowded Jerusalem? If it was still only the 13th of Nisan, there would be no reason for Jesus to leave the house of Lazarus. However, if the Last Supper was a Passover meal on the day of Nisan 14, there was no option, the Passover had to be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, making the journey a required one. Reicke’s argument falls apart more when the Greek employed by both Mark and Luke is compared to that of Deuteronomy’s Passover language in the LXX: κα θσεις τ πασχα κυρ τ θε,… You shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God… The two Gospels use πσχα (Passover) and θω (sacrifice), the exact words used in the LXX to reference the Passover sacrifice. To date no evidence has been presented to suggest that πσχα θυον would mean anything besides the sacrifice of the Passover lamb which can only take place on the 14th of Nisan as prescribed by the Torah. Beyond this, I am not aware of any evidence that the phrase “the day the Pascha was sacrificed” (or any phrase like it) referred to the Passover in general and even more specifically a day that was not considered part of Passover (i.e. Nisan 13). For such a claim to be taken seriously, evidence will need to be provided that this phrase was used in reference to anything besides the specific day of Nisan 14 in the first century. Until such evidence is produced, the day in which the Passover lamb was sacrificed was a very specific day in the Torah and thus a specific day in the minds of the Jewish people.
You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight. (Exodus 12:6)
Then on the fourteenth day of the first month shall be the LORD’S Passover. (Numbers 28:16)
8
First century non-canonical evidence confirms the Gospel’s to be speaking of a specific day instead of a “nontechnical” period. Josephus states:
Accordingly, he having got the Hebrews ready for their departure, and having sorted the people into tribes, he kept them together in one place; but when the fourteenth day was come, and all were ready to depart, they offered the sacrifice, and purified their houses with the blood, using bunches of hyssop for that purpose; and when they had supped, they burnt the remainder of the flesh, as just ready to depart. (2.14.6) Whence it is that we do still offer this sacrifice in like manner to this day, and call this festival Pascha, which signifies the feast of the passover; (Antiquities 2.312–313 JOSEPH)
Several things should be noted here. Josephus tells us that on the 14th day was when the Hebrews θυον “sacrificed” (same word used in Mark, Luke and the LXX of Deut 16:2), then goes on to state that “Whence it is that we do still offer this sacrifice in like manner to this day, and call this festival Pascha” Josephus also tells us that the festival is πσχα καλοντες “called Pascha.” Philo writes:
Accordingly, in this month, about the fourteenth day of the month, when the orb of the moon is usually about to become full, the public universal feast of the passover is celebrated, which in the Chaldaic language is called pascha; (Moses 2.224 PHILO)
Once again, we see a first century witness references the word Pascha with the 14th of Nisan (although the preposition περ (about) is present in this text). These first century witnesses also shed light on Jesus’ words when He specifically refers to the Pascha. “I am to keep the Passover (πσχα) at your house with My disciples.” (Matthew 26:18) and, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover (πσχα) with you before I suffer” (Luke 22.15 NAS95) Reicke’s assertion that the term “the day the Pascha was sacrificed” is a general time period that could include non-festal days around the Passover celebration, is not supported by any evidence. What is more, if Jesus and His disciples were not celebrating the Passover on the 14th, but rather a covenant meal on the 13th, it would not be referred to by Jesus and His disciples as the Pascha. Once again we see no evidence that a meal on the 13th would be called a Pascha, nor is there any evidence that a sacrifice performed on the 13th of Nisan would be considered anything besides a normal θυσαν (sacrifice).
9
Two Calendars One explanation that attempts to justify Jesus calling the meal a Passover while still placing His death on Nisan 14 is that of the Essene hypothesis. This theory suggests that Jesus and His disciples were following the 364 day solar calendar observed by the Essenes. First proposed by Annie Jaubert,25 James Walther sums this theory up nicely:
It is proposed that Jesus and his disciples observed the Passover according to the old solar calendar, which located the festival that year in the same week as did the official calendar, a coincidence neither impossible nor even unlikely.… … J. T. Milik in his recent monograph, Dix ans de decouvertes dans le desert de Juda, mentions manuscripts from Cave IV which place the observance of the Passover on Tuesday; and since the dates of this calendar were immovable, Passover would regularly occur on that day of the week. The official calendar was subject to intercalation, and hence the occurrence of festivals was in effect manipulated by the priests who determined these intercalations. This variation and the comparative fixity of the solar calendar seem to have been the foci of the calendar dispute.26
This hypothesis posits Jesus ate the Passover meal on Tuesday (Nisan 14 according to the solar calendar) and died on Friday (Nisan 14 according to the lunar calendar). Although this chronology might look attractive at the outset, it creates significant problems.27 First there is no evidence that Jesus held to the Essene calendar, but rather the evidence points to Jesus holding to the same calendar as the Temple:
Whenever the Gospels do depict Jesus participating in the various annual feasts, he always does so in the Temple at the same time as the majority of Jews. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus clearly keeps the feast of Tabernacles at the same time everyone else “goes up” to the feast (see John 7:1-10).28
If Jesus was using the Essene calendar it would be impossible for Him to have the Passover lamb at His table. Jesus and His disciples would not have been able to sacrifice a lamb outside the temple, as this would directly contradict the Torah’s regulation on sacrifice (Deut. 12:5-7). There is no
25 Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Alba House, 1965) 26 James A. Walther, “The Chronology of Passion Week”, JBL, Vol. 77, No. 2 1958, p.
117-118 27 For a full treatment of the Essene Hypothesis and some of its pro’s and con’s, see
Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 260ff 28 Ibid., p. 271
10
evidence that the temple priests were willing to cater to various groups desired calendar reckoning, and since the Pharisee’s ruled the halachah of the sacrificial system, it is even more difficult to assume they were flexible on the laws pertaining to the sacrifices. Finally, it would be impossible for Jesus and His disciples to bring an animal to the temple and take it with them when they left the Temple proper. The temple did not act as Jerusalem’s local slaughter house, and people were not given the luxury of bringing meat to butcher on the altar in order to eat common meals (which a “love meal” or banquet would have been considered on any other day besides Nisan 14, as reckoned by the temple). Only the peace offering had the offerer partake of the meat, but it was to be cooked in the temple, and the priest partook of the offering as well (Lev. 7:11-21).29 To suggest that the disciples went to the temple, had the priest slit the throat of a lamb, then asked the priest to give it back, and the priests obliged such a request, is outside the realm of plausibility.30 Thus, the only possible suggestion for Jesus to have partaken of a Passover meal according to the solar calendar in direct contradiction to the temple, is to suggest that He did not have a Passover lamb as part of His Passover meal. This would invalidate the meal as the Passover altogether, bagging the question why they continue to call it the “Pascha”, but more importantly, it would be in direct violation of the Torah command pertaining to the Passover meal that requires a Passover lamb. Thus, to suggest Jesus partook of a lambless Passover meal is to suggest He did not actually keep the Passover, making Him in violation of the Torah regulation.
Synoptic Account The Passover Hypothesis starts with the time marker given by the synoptics as already laid out above. Since all three Synoptic Gospels begin the Last Supper narrative by placing it on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (i.e. the first day of unleavened bread, the day the pascha was sacrificed (Matt. 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7), this is the starting point. From this time marker everything else takes shape. This is no different than the Synoptic hypothesis. The point of divergence these two positions take is when the
29 It should also be noted that the peace offering was not to touch anything that was unclean. It is highly unlikely that the priests would allow a person to take their portion of the offering out of the temple proper since it would be likely to come in contact with things unclean. It has been argued that Jerusalem was declared clean on Nisan 14 because of the volume of attendees, but if true (which I believe it is) this would have been reckoned according to the calendar put forth by the temple proper and not the solar calendar.
30 Although anachronistic, it is worth noting that the Mishnah (Zev. 1:1ff) has an entire discussion on if a person brings an offering on the 14th of Nisan and does not designate it as a Passover sacrifice, is it still valid?
11
Synoptic hypothesis begins to view John as “different” in chronology. It is at this point that the Passover hypothesis becomes independent from others by suggesting John is actually giving the exact same chronology as the Synoptics. This interpretation looks at the language found within first century literature and proposes John is using language his intended audience would understand, but has been misunderstood by later readers. We turn now to the texts in the Gospel of John that seem to pose contradictions to the Synoptic accounts. Since these theories are well laid out by various scholars I will attempt to be brief.
John 13:1-2 If we begin at the starting point that the Last Supper took place on Nisan 14 as seen in the synoptic accounts, the crucifixion chronology begins to take shape. Nisan 15 is a festival Sabbath (Ex. 12:16, Lev. 23:7, Num 28:18), so Jesus would have been laid in the tomb around 3:30pm on this day. This poses an illusive problem for the various hypothesis of the Passion chronology because John’s Gospel seems to place the meal between Jesus and His disciples on Nisan 13 and Jesus’s death on Nisan 14. In John 13:1-2 we read:
Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, (John 13:1–2)
John states “Now before the Feast of the Passover…” then goes on to describe the dinner between Jesus and His disciples. This has led many scholars to believe the Last Supper took place on Nisan 13. Dr. Brant Pitre rightfully explains:
According to this interpretation, John 13:1 refers to the afternoon of 13 Nisan (John 13:1), twenty-four hours before the lambs were sacrificed and the remainder of John’s account takes place during the “night” of 14 Nisan (John 13:30) - twenty-four hours before the lambs were eaten. In the words of Raymond Brown: “The evening of this meal and the next day, on which Jesus will die, constitute Passover Eve.” As widespread as this interpretation is, it is quite wrong, and reveals modern scholarly confusion about the first-century Jewish Passover and festal terminology. In an ancient Jewish context, “the feast” (heorté) of Passover always refers to 15 Nisan, the day on which the lambs were eaten. Therefore, “before the feast of
12
Passover” means 14 Nisan, not 13 Nisan.31
Pitre proves this point by looking at three witnesses, Num. 28, Jub. 49 and Mishnah Pes. 1:
Then on the fourteenth day of the first month shall be the LORD’S Passover. ‘On the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast .unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days ,(ορτ ,) (Numbers 28:16–17)32
The fact that the LXX specifically calls the 15th of Nisan the ορτ should be enough to show that it is completely plausible, and perhaps even expected, for a first century Jew to use the same wording.
Remember the commandment which the Lord commanded thee concerning the passover, that thou shouldst celebrate it in its season on the fourteenth of the first month, that thou shouldst kill it before it is evening, and that they should eat it by night on the evening of the fifteenth from the time of the setting of the sun. For on this night– the beginning of the festival and the beginning of the joy– ye were eating the passover in Egypt… (Jubilees 49.1–2 PSEUD)
Pitre also sights the Mishnah which, although written later, may show that calling the 15th the “festival” might have been common phraseology dating back to the first century (and earlier) since it was referenced as such in the Torah.
A. R. Judah says, “They seek out [leaven] (1) on the night of the fourteenth, (2) on the fourteenth in the morning, and (3) at the time of removal.” B. And sages say, “[If] one did not seek out [leaven] on the night of the fourteenth, he may seek it out (1) on the fourteenth. C. “If he did not seek it out on the fourteenth, let him seek it out (2) at the appointed time () (Pesahim 1.3 MISH-N)
Thus when John states “Now before the Feast of the Passover,” it should rightly be understood to mean any time before sundown the evening of the 14th (i.e. the “Festival” being the 15th of Nisan). The distinction between the term “ορτς” (festival) and the word “πσχα” (Passover) is an important one.
31 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 341-342 32 This word is also used in the LXX for Nisan 15 in Lev. 23:6: κα ν τ
πεντεκαιδεκτ μρ το μηνς τοτου ορτ τν ζμων τ κυρ πτ μρας ζυμα δεσθε. (Leviticus 23.6 LXX1)
13
John 13:27-30 The use of ορτς (festival) for the 15th of Nisan is also important in understanding what some have posed as a significant problem with the end of Jesus’ meal. In John 13:27 Jesus tells Judas, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” The disciples don’t understand this, and in v. 29 it states:
Some thought that, because Judas had the money bag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. (John 13.29)
John has already used the phrase “during supper” (δεπνου γινομνου) in 13:2, but this certainly could be a reference to any part of the ceremonial meal. Yet, John places the discussion between the disciples and who will betray Him in verse 27-29. Luke seems to place the discussion of betrayal after the meal and after the “words of institution.” According to Matthew and Mark’s accounts, the Last Supper took place in the “evening.”
Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. (Matthew 26:20)
When it was evening He came with the twelve. (Mark 14:17)
It is argued that since sundown on the 14th would enter into a festival Sabbath, no first century Jew would think of buying supplies let alone leaving the Passover table to go purchase something. Many commentators that hold to the Synoptic or the Passover hypotheses believe this passage took place after sundown, which would be the beginning of Nisan 15. If the Passover hypothesis is correct then even the suspicion that Judas would be going to buy something is out of place and brings doubt that this event took place on the night of Nisan 14 turning to Nisan 15. However, this verse may actually strengthen the Passover hypothesis rather than damaging it. First, since the disciples believe Judas needed to go quickly to purchase something for the festival, it makes little sense that this took place on Nisan 13th. D.A. Carson puts up a strong argument for why this verse is not referring to a love meal by stating:
What you are about to do, do quickly.” John adds (13:29) that some of those present thought Jesus was telling Judas to buy what was necessary for the feast, or else give something to the poor. How could they think this, if they were just then finishing the feast?
14
But one may also ask why, if the feast was still twenty-four hours away, anyone would think that there would be any rush to buy things. It is more reasonable to think that the disciples thought Judas needed to make some purchases for the continuing “Feast of Unleavened Bread”—e.g., some more unleavened bread. Since the next day, still Friday, 15 Nisan, was a high feast day and the day after a Sabbath, it was best to do things immediately.33
Pitre agrees:
As even advocates of the Johannine hypothesis admit, the disciples’ interpretation of Judas’ actions make no sense according to the common assumption that the Passover meal was still twenty- four hours away. As Raymond Brown notes: “Why would Judas be sent out to make the purchases on Thursday night when all Friday remained for shopping?” The only reason for Judas to go out shortly before “night” (John 13:30) to buy something “for the feast” was that “the feast” - i.e., the Passover meal - was about to begin. The disciples thus appear to imagine Judas going out to the nearby street (perhaps containing festal vendors about to close up shop) just before nightfall to make a final purchase for the Passover feast.34
Pitre places this event before the actual festival meal. While the various parts of the festival celebration at table is certainly debatable, it is acceptable that the festival meal could have began before the sun set on Nisan 14. Carson, Pitre, and Brown’s35 point is well taken. If the Passover meal was not going to take place for another 24 hours why would the disciples assume Judas was getting up from a love meal with his Master to go buy something that could be purchased the next morning? The very fact the disciples would assume such a thing points to these events taking place on the evening of Nisan 14 before the sun set. Pitre assumes the meal took place after Judas left the table,36 and this can still place our verse before sundown on the night of the 14th. Carson takes a different interpretation, believing the sun had already set. Carson then attempts to argue religious Jews within the first century would be exempt from the festival Sabbath laws of buying and selling if the purchase was something needed for the festival itself.
33 D. A. Carson, Matthew. EBC 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Zondervan, 1984), p. 530
34 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 349 35 Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1970), p. 576 36 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 348
15
It is more reasonable to think that the disciples thought Judas needed to make some purchases for the continuing “Feast of Unleavened Bread”—e.g., some more unleavened bread. Since the next day, still Friday, 15 Nisan, was a high feast day and the day after a Sabbath, it was best to do things immediately. By Jewish reckoning the high feast day (15 Nisan) had begun that Thursday evening; but purchases were more than likely still possible, though inconvenient. After all one could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before a Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (M Sanhedrin 23:1)[Sic].37
While this is an innovative suggestion, I find it less than convincing. First, Carson is attempting to use the Mishnah to support the notion that a person could purchase something for the festival if needed. Yet, this is a misrepresentation of the Mishnaic text:
A man [on the Sabbath] asks for jugs of wine or oil from his fellow, B. provided that he does not say to him, “Lend [them] to me.” C. And so a woman [borrows] loaves of bread from her neighbor. D. And if one does not trust the other, he leaves his cloak with him and settles with him after the Sabbath. E. And so is the case on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem when that day coincides with the Sabbath: F. One leaves his cloak with him and takes his Passover lamb and settles with him after the festival. (Shabbat 23.1 MISH-N)
The Mishnah describes the scenario in which Nisan 14 falls on a weekly Sabbath. This would put the festival Sabbath of Nisan 15 on a Sunday. The text is suggesting that someone has not yet purchased the Passover lamb that would be slaughtered. The Mishnah places the command of slaughtering the Passover lamb above the command to cease from commerce on the Sabbath. This passage, however, does not allow for purchasing any other supplies for the festival, nor does it take into account having some of what was needed for the festival, but not having as much as one might desire. Carson is utilizing later rabbinical literature to substantiate his claims, but neglects to mention that by the time the Talmud comes around, it is set halacha that only an olive size of matzah is required to fulfill the command of eating unleavened bread.38 This, of course, is far removed from our first century text, but it shows that later rabbinical thought did concern itself with
37 This reference is an error, as Carson is referring to m.Shabbat 23:1; D.A. Carson, Matthew. EBC 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Zondervan, 1984), p. 531
38 Pesachim 108a
16
the amount of matzah that was required. I only bring this up to point out that if matzah was being used throughout the meal, and was already broken and used after the meal during the words of institution, it seems that getting up to acquire more matzah would not be a necessity that would warrant breaking the festival Sabbath. Since the Gospels place the Last Supper on a Thursday, the later rabbinical rulings in m.Shabbat 23.1 still would not apply. Jeremias states that:
Merchants were allowed to hand out foodstuffs to their customers if nothing was said about measurement, weight and price.39
While it seems that Jeremias and Carson are arguing the same point, this quote actually weighs against their argument. If merchants weren’t allowed to mention price, why would the disciples suppose Judas was going to γρασον (“buy”) the things they needed because he was in possession of the γλωσσκομον (“money bag”)? Jeremias does go on to mention m.Shabbat 23.4 where it allows for purchasing a coffin and/or a shroud for the dead on a Sabbath:
A. They wait at the Sabbath limit at twilight to attend to the business of a bride, B. and the affairs of a corpse, C. to bring it a coffin and wrappings. (Shabbat 23.4 MISH-N)
The text continues on with various things that can be done in the preparation of a corps on a Sabbath. This portion of Mishnah still does not apply to our passage in John since the Mishnah gives no mention of purchasing anything except perhaps a coffin or a shroud.40 Nonetheless, Carson’s notion that the disciples believed Judas would purchase unleavened bread after the sunset on Nisan 14 finds no support even in the later rabbinic texts. Nonetheless, Carson’s belief that not enough unleavened bread had been purchased may be true, but only if the sun is still up on Nisan 14. Luke places the discussion between the disciples about who would betray Jesus after they had already eaten, and after the words of institution
39 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press, 1977), p. 77 40 This passage of Mishnah is often used to show that it would not be out of the ordi-
nary for Joseph of Arimathea to purchase a shroud on the festival Sabbath (Mark 15:46). Although it is certainly plausible that purchasing a shroud was permissible on a festival Sabbath, and that a mortician would be willing and lawfully right to sell one on the festival Sabbath, it is also possible that Joseph had bought the shroud at a previous time, especially if he had purchased the tomb in anticipation for family member or close friend’s eminent death. The Greek word γορσας is in the aorist participle, meaning the sentence could just as well read “Joseph ‘having previously’ bought a shroud…”
17
(Luke 22:20,23). What is more, the very phrase “what you are going to do, do quickly” suggests a time restraint. If it was indeed lawful for Judas to purchase matzah on the festival Sabbath, why does Jesus tell him to do it quickly? If this was a lawful act, and so common the disciples would assume this to be what Judas was getting up to do, why would there need to be haste? Judas would be able to purchase the matzah at anytime during the festival Sabbath which would now last through the next day. Rather, the text implies the sun was near setting on Nisan 14 and the disciples assume Judas was going to purchase something before the sun set. According to the Torah the Passover sacrifice was to be slaughtered between the evenings” (Exodus 12:6). Daily time was reckoned“ according to the sunrise,41 and Josephus tells us the Passover lambs were slaughtered between the 9th and 11th hours (3:00pm and 5:00pm respectively).
So these high priests, upon the coming of their feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a company, (War 6.423 JOSEPH)
The Mishnah agrees with Josephus stating that the lambs were slaughtered after the afternoon sacrifice which was pushed back in order to accommodate the Passover sacrifice.
The daily whole offering [of the afternoon] [generally] was slaughtered at half after the eighth [after dawn, about 2:30 P.M.] and offered up at half after the ninth hour [about 3:30 P.M]. On the eve of Passover, [the daily whole offering] was slaughtered at half after the seventh hour [1:30 P.M] and offered up at half after the eighth hour [2:30 P.M] whether on an ordinary day or on the Sabbath. [if, however,] the eve of Passover coincided with the eve of the Sabbath [Friday], it was slaughtered at half after the sixth hour [12”30 P.M.] and offered up at half after the seventh hour [1:30 P.M], and [then] the Passover offering [was slaughtered]
41 Much has been written on the reckoning of time in the first century. For more on this see: F. F. Bruce, Wood, D. R. W., ed. NBD. 3d, Accordance electronic edition, version 2.3. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996; and also James Davis, The Time of Jesus’ Death and Inerrancy: Is Harmonization Plausible?, Bible.org, (https:// bible.org/article/time-jesus-death-and-inerrancy-harmonization-plausible#_ftn4) last checked May 7th, 2019.
18
after it. (m.Pesachim 5.1)42 This passage is in agreement with the first century witness of Josephus cited above. The sun began to set at 12:00pm, and the Mishnah tells us the Passover lambs began to be slaughtered after the daily offering. This would place the slaughter of the Passover lamb between the 8th and 9th hour according to the Mishnah. The lambs were then cooked in individual homes on fires that had already been prepared. The roasting of the lambs could have begun as early as 3:15pm for those who were first in line in the temple. The outer portions of the lamb that were fully cooked first were no doubt cut off and eaten when ready. The fact that the New Testament uses the word οψας (evening) is also telling as the “eve” of Passover was the time that began as soon as the sun started to set (i.e. 12:30pm) until it had fully disappeared under the horizon.43 The Hebrew of Lev. 23:5-6 states:
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the evenings is the pesach to YHVH. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of unleavened bread to YHVH. Seven days you shall eat matzah.44
This text states that the 14th of Nisan is the Pesach and not the 15th of Nisan. As stated previously, Pitre has attached four meanings to the word “Pascha.” Pitre lists these four meanings as:
1. The Passover Lamb - sacrificed in the afternoon, on 14 Nisan. 2. The Passover Meal - eaten in the evening on 15 Nisan 3. The Passover Peace Offering - offered and eaten during 15- 21 Nisan 4. The Passover Week - 15-21 Nisan, the seven day feast.45
Since Pitre does not reference Lev. 23 in regards to any of the definitions he gives for the word Pascha, we are left to assume that he understands this text to be referencing the Passover lamb sacrificed on Nisan 14. However, Pitre makes note that when the Torah references the Passover as a sacrifice
42 Translation, including times added, taken from Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 (TorahResource 2008), p. 469
43 This time could be debated since we are unaware of when the intercalation of the months within the first century were taking place. If we attempted to guess we could be off in either direction by a month, but I would hesitantly suggest around 7:00pm)
44 Authors translation. 45 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 333
19
it is often easy to identify “because it is frequently accompanied by the language of killing or sacrificing the Passover.”46 Something our Leviticus text leaves out altogether. I agree that all four of Pitre’s suggestions for the meaning of the word Pascha are correct, yet I believe number 2 needs modification or a 5th meaning needs to be added, as it seems Lev. 23 calls the 14th of Nisan “the Passover.”
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. (Leviticus 23.5–6)
John says after Judas went out ν δ νξ “now it was night” (John 13:30). If Jesus and the disciples were eating the Passover meal in the “Evening”, i.e. before the sun was below the horizon on Nisan 14, then the suspicion that Judas would be buying something for the ορτς (festival) which is always designated as Nisan 15, or give money to the poor is totally acceptable. If the festival Sabbath did not begin until the sun was fully set, and there was still a short time before night (νξ) it would be lawful according to the Torah for Judas to purchase something for the festival Sabbath, which was quickly approaching. Pitre’s assumption that the meal had not been eaten yet certainly seems the most valid, yet the idea of the “meal” could have been anytime within the ceremonial Passover celebration that began on Nisan 14 and extended into the night becoming Nisan 15. My point here is simple, the ceremonial dinner had certainly began, and portions of the meal, including eating some of the sacrificial lamb could have taken place before the sun set. Thus the objection that Judas would not have been able to purchase anything if this narrative took place on Nisan 14 is not a strong argument as our narrative extends from the 14th into the 15th.
John 18:28 Once again John gives, what seems to be, a contradicting account by placing Jesus’ death on the 14th of Nisan in John 18:28:
Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.
The obvious question arises, if Jesus celebrated a Passover meal on Nisan
46 Ibid. 334
20
14, and John’s narrative is taking place on Nisan 15, why would the Jewish authorities worry about being defiled to “eat the Passover?” According to the Synoptics the Passover lambs had already been slaughtered the day before. Jeremias, who believes the Last Supper was a Passover meal has difficulty reconciling John’s account with the Synoptics. He states:
Since, according to John 18.28 (cf. 19.14), at the time of Jesus’ accusation before Pilate the passover lambs had not yet been eaten, the crucifixion of Jesus occurred, according to John, on Nisan 14, the day of Preparation.47
Jeremias believes John has shifted the chronology to make Jesus’s crucifixion take place at the same time the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Raymond Brown also has a difficult time reconciling John with the Synoptics:
The reference in 18:28b means that for John the next day (Fri. night/Saturday) would be the 15th of Nisan involving the Passover meal, and that therefore Jesus was sentenced by Pilate and died on the 14th of Nisan.48
Interestingly, Brown does not attempt to offer his own suggestion on the discrepancies between the Gospels, but simply leaves the tension, chalking it up to two separate traditions. Others are not so quick to give up. Cullen Story gives an inventive explanation for what seems like contradictions between John and the Synoptics:
during the evening of the 14th of Nisan, not long after Jesus had celebrated the passover meal with his disciples, he was seized in the garden and taken, ultimately, to the praetorium. Those who had seized him and the religious leaders who had authorized the seizure-both groups being noted together as “they themselves” (John 18:28)-due to the fast-moving events that were sparked by Judas’ treachery, had only had time to slay the lamb, prepare it, and roast it, but no time to eat it. According to Mk. 14:2, the chief priests and scribes had wanted to avoid seizing Jesus “during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people”-or was there a hidden reason as well, i.e. lest their own celebration of the feast be interrupted? If so, their purpose was thwarted. They did seize Jesus “during the feast” and their celebration of the passover was
47 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press, 1977), p. 19 48 Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1, Doubleday 1993, p. 745;
Brown is so confident his assumption is correct he adds the word “meal” to his English translation in the Anchor Bible Commentary on the Gospel of John where the Greek does not provide it.
21
interrupted and thus, their “eating” of the passover lamb (John 18:28) went by the boards.49
While this suggestion is innovative, I believe Brown’s criticism to be appropriate:
I find quite implausible the explanation of Story (“Bearing”) that for John Jesus had eaten his Passover meal on Thursday night but the Jewish attendants who arrested him and the priests had not yet had time to eat their meal. According to Story’s interpretation of Exod 12:10 they had till 6 AM Friday to eat it, and outside Pilate’s praetorium they were concerned to keep open that possibility.50
F.F. Bruce passes over this passage with little to say, but ultimately takes the Johannine chronology without giving any idea on how to resolve John and the Synoptics:
Whatever was the nature of the supper which Jesus had shared with his disciples in the upper room on the previous evening, the official Passover (for which the lambs had to be slaughtered in the temple during the afternoon of the day which had just dawned) was yet to be eaten (immediately after sunset), and those who were in a state of ceremonial purity in readiness to eat it could not now afford to contract defilement and be excluded from the Passover.51
The conclusion that John 18:28 is referring to the Passover lamb sacrifice on Nisan 14 is understandable but incorrect. According to Num. 28:16ff the Chagigah, or “festival sacrifices” are to be burnt offerings “”, meaning the entire sacrifice was to be burnt up (Num 28:19, 24). Not even the priests were able to eat the Chagigah, thus there would be no reason for the priests to be worried about becoming unclean in order to eat them. The key to understanding this passage in uniformity with the Synoptic chronology comes in Deut. 16 where the Passover peace offering that is sacrificed every day of the festival is called the Pascha in the LXX and Pesach in the Torah.
Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night. “You shall sacrifice the
49 Cullen I.K. Story, “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus”, NovT, Vol. 31, Fasc. 4, 1989, p. 322-323
50 Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1 (Doubleday, 1993), p. 745 51 F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John (Eerdmans, 1983), p. 349; Bruce suggests
in another work that Jesus was celebrating a lambless Passover meal on Nisan 13, F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (Anchor, 1972), p. 191-192
22
Passover to the LORD your God from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to establish His name. “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it unleavened bread, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), so that you may remember all the days of your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 16:1–3)
To this Hegg rightly states:
First, we may note the manner in which the term ,pesach , is being used in this paragraph. The text states that “you shall sacrifice the Passover ( to Adonai your God from the flock ( and the herd.…” The fact that the Pesach is said to be from the flock and from the herd means that the term is used here to mean more than just the Pesach lamb which is sacrificed at the beginning of the Festival.52
Pitre’s work on this passage goes further by showing that the language within John’s Gospel clearly describes the Last Supper as a Passover meal, and thus John expects the reader to understand his terminology at this point in the narrative.53 Pitre also gives a convincing exposition of pascha being used to refer to the weekly peace offerings:
“Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread” (Deut. 16:3). In this sentence, the antecedent for the Hebrew word “it” is “Passover,” so that it means: “Seven days you shall eat the Passover with unleavened bread.” Again, this cannot refer to eating the initial lambs over the course of seven days, but rather to the peace offerings of the festal week. In the passage from Chronicles, [2 Chron. 35:7-9] we find even more explicit evidence: Josiah and Hilkiah gives thousands of bulls as “Passovers” (pesahim) for the people to eat (2 Chron 35:7, 8, 9). These “Passovers” cannot refer to the initial Passover lambs, since, once again, a bull could not be offered for that sacrifice.54
Bruggen argues that John never uses the word pascha to refer to the Passover lamb or Passover meal, but only to the Passover feast, which would include the peace offerings throughout the festival week:
The fact that the expression “eat the Passover” as used in John has
52 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 (TorahResource, 2008), p. 487; Author’s original emphasis.
53 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 352f 54 Ibid., p. 337-338
23
somewhat broader meaning than it does for the other evangelists should not surprise us. John never uses the word pascha to mean “Passover lamb” or “Passover meal” (unlike passages such as Matt. 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; and Luke 22:7-15). For John the meaning is always “the period of the Passover Feast” (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:39). “To eat the Passover” can simply be defined as “eating the sacrificial meals that were part of the Passover Feast.”55
Because of the wording found within the Tanach itself, Hegg and Pitre suggest this terminology would have been easily understood within the first century. Several suggestions have been made on the nature of the ritual impurity that the priests were worried about. Perhaps one of the more popular theories is that the priests didn’t want to enter the house of a gentile because this, according to the Mishnah, would bring ritual impurity for seven days.
It was the rule that “The dwelling-places of gentiles are unclean.” Any Jew who entered such a dwelling would immediately contact defilement, a defilement which lasted seven days. This would effectively prevent him from observing the feast.56
This popular theory is based on m.Oholot 18:7 which states:
A. He who buys a field in Syria, near the Land of Israel, if he can enter it in a state of cleanness, it is clean, and it is subject to the laws of tithes and the seventh year. If he cannot enter it in a state of cleanness, it is unclean, but it [still] is liable to the laws of tithes and of the seventh year. B. Dwelling places of gentiles [in the Land of Israel] are unclean. C. How long must [the gentiles] remain in them for them to require examination [to determine their status]? Forty days, even though there is no woman with him. D. And if a slave or an [Israelite] woman was watching over it, it does not require an examination. (Oholot 18.7 MISH-N)
Thus, Beasley-Murray suggests:
The precise ground for this uncleanness is uncertain, but it appears to be founded on the fear of Jews that abortions and premature babies who die may be buried within the area of Gentile houses, so rendering the homes subject to the uncleanness of the dead57
55 Jakob Van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History (Baker, 1987), p. 218-219
56 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1971), p. 763 57 Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. 2d (Zondervan, 1999), p. 327
24
Although this argument does support corps defilement, which I fully believe is the reason for not entering the Praetorium, this passage of Mishnah goes on to say there are ten exceptions to this law:
A. Ten places are not subject to the law applying to the dwelling of gentiles: (1) tents of Arabs, (2) field huts, (3) tents, (4) fruit shelters, (5) summer houses, (6) a gatehouse, (7) the open space of a courtyard, (8) the bath, (9) an armory, and (10) the place of the legions. (Oholot 18.10 MISH-N)
Since this was not the permanent residence of Pilot, and since this was most likely the place where portions of soldiers resided, if we take the Mishnah as our witness, it seems the Praetorium was exempt from this law. However, the Mishnah is late, and we have no first century witness that suggests entering the home of a gentile would make a person ritually unclean due to corps defilement. Yet, corps defilement is certainly what the priests had in mind since any other kind of ritual impurity that could be contracted by entering a structure would have been negated with a bath at sundown. Thus, even if this narrative did take place on the 14th of Nisan, the priests would have been able to take part in eating the Passover lamb that night unless corps defilement was the issue.58
John 19:14 The Gospel of John raises yet another seeming chronological contradiction with the Synoptic Gospels when he talks about Jesus’ trial and writes: “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.” (John 19:14) Scholars who take the Last Supper as a Passover meal agree on this passage. The word παρασκευ (preparation) is not speaking of Nisan 14, but rather, to Friday within the Passover week.
In pagan and Christian usage, the word παρασχευ “preparation,” became the regular word for “Friday” since Friday was the Jewish preparation day for the Sabbath. Two Christian references to the term meaning “Friday” occur in the Didache (8:1) and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (7:1). Since the Didache may be as early as A.D. 120, only some 25 years later than John, one wonders if John 19:14 may not itself mark one of the earliest Christian usages
58 It is outside the scope of this study to investigate the exact reason corps defilement would be a concern. While entering the home of a gentile certainly could be argued, I believe there are more possibilities that could be investigated.
25
of παρασχευ meaning “Friday”59
The phrase “it was the day of preparation for the Passover” translates the Greek ν δ παρασκευ το πσχα (paraskeue) means either a preparation day for a festival, or the preparation day for the weekly Sabbath. This would be the day before the first day of a festival, or Friday of each week.60
In the first-century A.D., the Greek word “preparation” (paraskeué) is simply the Jewish name for “Friday,” because that was the day of the week on which one would “prepare” (paraskeuazó) for the Sabbath which began at sundown Friday evening.61
Both Hegg and Pitre sight Josephus to support this claim who states:
it seemed good to me and my counsellors, according to the sentence and oath of the people of Rome, that the Jews have liberty to make use of their own customs, according to the law of their forefathers, as they made use of them under Hyrcanus, the high priest of Almighty God; and that their sacred money be not touched, but be sent to Jerusalem, and that it be committed to the care of the receivers at Jerusalem; and that they be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of the preparation to it ( τ πρ ατς παρασκευ π ρας ντης), after the ninth hour; (Antiquities 16.163 JOSEPH)
Pitre gives further evidence of this by sighting Mark 15:42-43 which relates these same events but specifically states that “it was preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath…” and Luke 23:54 which says “It was the day of preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.” If we accept the suggestion that John was not only aware of the Synoptics, but expected his readers to be somewhat familiar with them (as argued above), John’s phraseology is clear. John 19:14 is referencing the weekly preparation day for the Sabbath and not the preparation day for Nisan 15, Luke and John begin to line up and John 19:31 is now perfectly in agreement with these texts.
It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Luke 23:54)
59 Cullen I. K. Story, “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus”, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 31, Fasc. 4, Brill Oct., 1989, p. 318
60 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 (TorahResource, 2008), p. 477
61 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 358
26
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath… (John 19:31)
Samuele Bacchiocchi rightly states:
The first reason given for interpreting “the day of preparation” as meaning Wednesday rather than Friday is that “the day before the weekly Sabbath was never called a ‘preparation’ in the Bible.” This reason is puzzling, to say the least, because it flies in the face of the irrefutable Biblical and historical usage of the term “Preparation-paraskeue” as a technical designation for “Friday.” In addition to its occurrence in John 19:14, the term “Preparation- paraskeue” is used five times in the Gospels as a technical designation for “Friday” (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42)62
The Greek supports Bocchiocchi’s statement. Since the literal meaning of the phrase used is the preparation day “το” (of) the Passover, it leaves less guess work.
The Greek text reads, én de paraskeué tou pascha (“It was now the Preparation of Passover”). This phrase could also be translated as “Preparation for Passover,” but the translation “of Passover” is literal and gives a clear sense. It is the day of Preparation that falls during Passover. If the phrase were translated as “Preparation for Passover,” it could refer to the preparations under taken on 14 Nisan for the supper of the lamb served during the evening. Billerbeck’s opinion is that this interpretation is the only one possible, because what we supposedly have here is a translation of the technical rabbinic term ereb pesah (the preparation day for the Passover meal). Although this idea is argued forcefully, the evidence is lacking… Because the word does not mean “evening” (ereb), and because it cannot be demonstrated that the expression paraskeué tou pascha is used anywhere as the equivalent of “Passover Eve” (sêder happesah), and because the word paraskeuê appears in all four Gospels and always means “preparation day for the Sabbath” (i.e., Friday), the obvious translation of John 19:14 is “it was Passover Friday.”63
Arthur Wright sums it all up nicely:
62 Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection (Biblical Perspectives, 1985), p. 39
63 Jakob Van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History (Baker, 1987), p. 216-217
27
According to the common, and, I believe, unquestionably true, view “Preparation” is the Jewish name for Friday, as preparation was on that day made for the coming Sabbath.64
John 19:14 could perhaps be translated into modern English as: “Now it was the Friday of the Passover week.” This interpretation is strengthened by the absence of the word pascha in verse 31.
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)… (John 19.31)
Of course John 19:31 brings more to the discussion than just the reference to the “preparation,” much has been suggested with regard to John’s meaning of μεγλη μρα (great Sabbath). To which we will now turn.
John 19:31 - μεγλη μρα (Great Sabbath) The final issue we will look at that is presented as a reason John’s account is different from that of the Synoptics is the presence of the phrase “it was a great sabbath.” John is the only Gospel writer to use such a phrase. What is more, John uses this phrase two times within the Gospel. In John 7:37 we find this phrase in the attributive, where as in John 19:31 it is found in the predicate. Although one might put up a reason for the difference in grammar, I view the two texts as saying the same thing only attributed to different festivals. Interestingly, we don’t see this same phrase used anywhere in the LXX except for Genesis 21:8, but the Greek is translating the Hebrew word as μρ which doesn’t apply to either text in John since (banquet) the Gospel writer uses it in reference to appointed times of the Lord, but the Tanach is using it in reference to a banquet that is not appointed by God. Those who believe the Last Supper was something other than the Passover meal point to this as more proof. It is believed that the “great” Sabbath is made great because Nisan 15 (the festival Sabbath day) falls on the weekly Sabbath, making it even more special than usual. Raymond Brown takes this position, but admits there is no evidence for such a claim:
The 15th of Nisan, the first day of Passover, was a holy day (LXX of Exod 12:16), and the fact that in this particular year it fell on a Sabbath would make it even more solemn. However, we have no
64 Arthur Wright, “On the Date o the Crucifixion”, TBW, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Aug., 1893) p. 106
28
early Jewish attestation of the word “solemn” (literally “great”) being used to designate a Sabbath that is also a feast day65
R.V.G. Tasker suggests it is simply the weekly Sabbath found within the week of Passover and is therefore referred to as great.
Preparation day, as already mentioned, was not the day of preparation for the Passover meal but for the ensuing sabbath (cf. Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). It was a special sabbath because it fell in Passover week.66
Keener is vague on his understanding of why this day would be considered a high Sabbath:
As a Sabbath during the festival time, this Sabbath was a particularly sacred one; by John’s chronology, it would be the first day of the Passover festival (the second day by the Synoptic chronology).67
Keener moves on without going further into detail, however, he does note that the second day of the Passover could carry extra significance as well by referencing D.A. Carson. Carson suggests the day in question is not the 15th of Nisan but rather the 16th of Nisan, and the first day of counting the Omer. According to this theory, Nisan 16 falls on a weekly Sabbath (taking 19:14 as Friday) and was also the day the first Omer would be cut and brought to the temple. Carson references Philo and his description of the first day of the Omer:
There is also a festival on the day of the paschal feast, which succeeds the first day, and this is named the sheaf, from what takes place on it; for the sheaf is brought to the altar as a first fruit both of the country which the nation has received for its own, and also of the whole land; so as to be an offering both for the nation separately, and also a common one for the whole race of mankind; and so that the people by it worship the living God, both for themselves and for all the rest of mankind, because they have received the fertile earth for their inheritance; for in the country there is no barren soil but even all those parts which appear to be stony and rugged are surrounded with soft veins of great depth, which, by reason of their richness, are very well suited for the
65 Raymond E. Brown The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI. The Anchor Yale Bible. (Yale University Press, 1974), p. 934
66 Kruse, Colin G. John: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 4. IVP/Accordance electronic edition, version 2.1. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
67 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Baker, 2003), p. 1150-1151
29
production of living things. (Laws 2.162 PHILO-E)
Carson’s suggestion is that the Sabbath ritual along with the presence of festal rituals makes this day μεγλη (great). Arthur Pink presented this same understanding and concisely wrote:
The day on which the Saviour was crucified was “an high day”: it was on the eve of the regular weekly sabbath and also of the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, from which the Jews reckoned the seven weeks to pentecost; the same day was also the one appointed for the presentation and offering of the sheaf of new corn, so that it possessed a treble solemnity.68
Pitre, taking this same view, connects John’s first mention of a “great Sabbath” by pointing out the additional ritual celebration of the water- libation found in Zech. 14, which fell on the 7th day of Sukkoth. Thus, the festival ritual of Sukkoth which is the same for all seven days of the week long festival would be expanded on the 7th day by the addition of the water- libation ritual. Although quite long, I feel two quotes from Pitre to be worth viewing in full:
Unlike an ordinary Sabbath, where everyone would remain in their homes observing the day of rest, on the feast of first fruits (Nisan 16), the Jewish pilgrims residing in Jerusalem would have been going up to the Temple in Jerusalem for the offering of the sheaf of first fruits - a celebration, as the Mishnah says, carried out “with great pomp.” On such a day, the pilgrim crowds would have easily seen that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves had been left on the crosses overnight, in direct contradiction to Jewish Scripture and tradition, which held that failing to bury the body of a hanged man would bring defilement on the whole land (Deut. 21:23; Josephus, War 4.317). In this context it would make good sense for the Jewish leaders to urge Pilate to get the bodies down from the crosses, lest a riot break out among the crowds in response to the direct violation of Mosaic law.69
As Raymond Brown points out in his commentary, this reference to “the great day” (hmera t megal) is a reference to the seventh day of the feast of Tabernacles. For that day there took place the climax of the seven-day “water-libation” ceremony, which has its roots in the book of Zechariah’s description (Zech 14:8, 16-19) and which is described in the Mishnah tractate on the feast of Tabernacles (see Mishnah, Sukkah 4:9-5:1) If this interpretation
68 Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 3, p.247 69 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 364
30
is correct, then the first mention of a “great day” (John 7:37) can help us to solidify the “great day” to refer to the solemn festal offering of the water in the Temple during the weeklong festival of Tabernacles, so too he uses the expression “the great day” to refer to the solemn festal offering of the first sheaf of grain in the reading of the Gospel in the light of external evidence from Jewish liturgy and internal evidence from the Gospel itself provides converging lines of support for the Passover hypothesis.70
Thus, the evidence tips the scales towards the reference to “great Sabbath” meaning a Sabbath that had more sacrifices and ritual obligations in the temple. This is not to say there aren’t further objections. However, the points that are looked to for criticism of the Passover hypothesis have already been dealt with in length in previous works. Below I have mentioned several of the common challenges that are put forward and references to full scholarly handling of these criticisms.71
The Presence of the Passover Lamb Much scholarly debate has been had concerning the presence of the Passover sacrifice at the Last Supper. If this meal was in fact a Passover celebration, on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, as argued above, it is my contention that not only did the lamb have to be present, but Jesus had to partake in eating the lamb. Luke makes reference to the πσχα (pascha) specifically in verse 7, referring to the Passover lamb. πσχα is used again in verses 11 and 13, and with this word being a specific reference to the sacrificial lamb in verse 7, it looks as if the text continues to reference the lamb itself. Thus, Jeremias writes:
According to Luke 22.15 Jesus began the Last Supper with the words, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.’ In this connection it must be noted that the words ‘to eat this passover’ can only mean ‘to eat this passover lamb’ (not ‘to celebrate this year’s passover’ or the like)72
Although Jeremias is convinced that Jesus’ reference to the πσχα can only be a reference to the lamb, the argument can also be made that to “prepare the Passover” could be referring to the entire meal (which would include
70 Ibid. p. 366 71 See p. 34 72 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Fortress Press 1977, p. 207-208
31
the Passover lamb), a position Darrell Bock takes:73
Jeremias’s suggestion (1966: 207-18) that Jesus refrained from eating this meal does not make sense, since Jesus has just said that he has just said that desired to share this meal with them. The meaning, rather, is that Jesus will not again sit at the Passover table until his return. Jesus’ refusal to eat such a festal meal until the consummation signals a new state in God’s plan.74
Although Jeremias concludes his statement about the πσχα referring to the Passover lamb, he goes on to suggest Jesus abstained from eating anything at the Last Supper. Bock is rightly skeptical:
In explaining his desire to eat the Passover with the disciples, Jesus speaks of not eating “it” until “it” is fulfilled in the kingdom of God, meaning he will abstain from eating such “a celebration meal” until “the plan” is done.75
Bock is certainly not alone in his criticisms of Jermias’ suggestion. Marshal cites H. Patsch (Abendmahl und historischer Jesus, p. 106-230) and concludes:
Although, therefore, this interpretation of the passage cannot be excluded as impossible (especially for Luke 22:18), it is not persuasive and reads a good deal into the text. Jesus was speaking about ‘not eating again’, not about ‘fasting’. This verdict would appear to be sound. The sayings on which Jeremias bases his interpretation are primarily statements about the future fulfilment of the Passover in the kingdom of God.76
Jeremias sees this as the only way the Quartodeciman tradition of fasting began,77 but fails to address perhaps the most important implication this theory raises. The Torah specifically commands the children of Israel to eat the Passover lamb:
73 Bock does note specifically state the word πσχα changes from lamb to meal within this passage. Bock does, however, state that verse 7 is referring to the Passover lamb (Luke, p. 22) but takes the reference to τομασαν τ πσχα in verse 8 as prepara- tion for the meal, and not the lamb alone.
74 Darrel L. Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, Baker 1992, p. 1720 75 Ibid. 76 I. Howard Marshal, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, Eerdmas 1980, p. 82 77 I believe Jeremias has misunderstood the custom of the Quartdeciman’s, something
I will discuss below.
32
They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Exodus 12.8)
The command to eat is part of the celebration that is to be continued:
This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast. (Exodus 12.14 ESV)
To sit at the table on Nisan 14 and not partake in the Passover lamb would go against the command of Torah. Jesus is to be the spotless and sinless sacrifice for His people in less than 24 hours, and now He will break the command of Torah to eat the Passover sacrifice? Not only is this unlikely, but it is impossible if Jesus is truly the sinless Messiah. The Torah goes further to proclaim that a man who is ritually clean and not on a journey, yet neglects to (keep the Passover), which certainly includes the Passover offering, will be cut off from his people. Thus, the suggestion that the Passover lamb was not present at the Last Supper falls very short.
Final Comments on the Passover Hypothesis It was my goal in this first section to show that the Synoptic Gospels are perfectly in line with John’s account of the Passion. There are many more aspects that could be addressed here, but I feel there is no need to restate the fantastic work of good scholars. Remaining objections to the Last Supper being a Passover meal have already been dealt with in satisfactory fashion in works like Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Last Supper, Tim Hegg’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, and Joachim Jeremias’ The Eucharistic Words of Jesus.78
With the evidence presented above I feel confident in the assertion that the recorded meal we have in all four Gospels is the retelling of Jesus and His disciples celebrating the Passover festival meal on Nisan 14.