|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Date of the Last Supper and Crucifixion
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
As we come up on Holy Week, no surprise, discussion has turned to some questions about the differences between John and the Synoptics noted by many NT scholars with regard to the date of the Last Supper and crucifixion. The discussion started as a "tangent" in a thread in Ecclesiantics about foot washing rituals. Here's a link for that whole thread, Maundy Thursday and Female Feet.
My Kerygmaniacal posts in that thread, I quote here (less some silly inter-shipmate stuff): quote:
On a Kerygmaniacal note, picking up on something posted by someone else in this thread: John and the Synoptics don't agree about the Last Supper being a Passover meal. While the Synoptics clearly say that it was, John, in contrast, has it happen "before the festival of the Passover" (John 13:1), so that Jesus is crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14), the day before the Passover meal would be eaten. So John, quite naturally, doesn't give the slightest hint that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Therefore, the question of whether women would normally be present at a Passover meal doesn't strike me as relevant if our concern is with what John meant to portray, since he clearly didn't mean to portray a Passover meal!
and quote:
The irreconcilable difference between John's chronology and that of the Synoptics is a "given" for NT scholars who do not have a prior commitment to the belief that the Bible cannot contain contradictions. There is a contradiction here -- one of the many between John and the Synoptics.
The crucial detail here is in John 13:1, which I referenced in my previous post. It's unambiguous: "Now before the festival of the Passover...." That's John's "date" for the Last Supper, where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Fully agreeing with this "date" for the Last Supper, John then states that Jesus' trial before Pilate took place on "the day of the Preparation for the Passover" (John 19:14). The text here does not say just, "day of preparation" -- that's the Synoptics. Feel free to check the Greek, as I did before writing this post.
John has Jesus crucified on 14 Nisan, at the very time that the Passover lambs are being slaughtered, to make it clear that Jesus is the True Paschal Lamb. He's also the only Evangelist to refer to Jesus' bones not being broken, precisely to make that point about Jesus being the Paschal Lamb (John 19:31-36, esp. verse 36). He's shaping the narrative to make a theological point. That's what biblical writers do, constantly. They're not modernist historians devoted to "the facts." Not even Luke was, despite his "bluster" about his careful research.
The Synoptics, on the the other hand, just as clearly have Jesus crucified on 15 Nisan, the day after the Passover meal. They're the ones that use "day of preparation" to mean only the day before the Sabbath.
It's only a one-day difference between John and the Synoptics. But that one day is quite significant!
Anyway care to continue the discussion here, where it is much more appropriate?
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Part of the question, as raised on the Maundy Thursday thread, is what was the "day of preparation" - preparation for the Passover, or the Sabbath?
Also, part of the problem is the year of the Crucifixion. Which will affect what day of the week the Passover fell.
I have heard it said that by the time of Jesus the Passover would have been celebrated on different days by different groups within Judaism. In particular that because of the number of lambs sacrificed many Jews would sacrifice their lambs and celebrate the Passover a day early, just to cover the practicalities of getting through all the sacrifices in the Temple. I've no idea how well supported that idea is, I can't recall off the top of my head where I heard that suggestion. It could just be one of those myths from my evangelical background, that allow a convenient reconciliation between the Gospel accounts.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
What I found interesting about the 'meal' passage in John is the word he uses for that meal – deipnon (= δεῖπνον), which is more than simply a basic supper, for which the more natural phrase (based on its Hebrew/Aramaic background) would have been 'taking bread' or 'breaking bread' where 'bread' (artos = ἄρτος) had early come to denote the basic meal for a family or individual. The chapter 13 'meal' is a larger meal in honour of something or someone. This doesn't necessarily indicate that the meal was related to the upcoming Passover festival, it may be John emphasising that the disciples might have pushed the culinary boat out here in Jesus' honour, in order for John to then switch things by having Jesus honour his disciples by washing their feet.
This dinner could potentially have taken place at any point in the run up to the Passover proper during the period when pilgrims arrived to engage in ceremonial cleansing (11:55). The last time indicator John gives before 13:1 (“Before the Passover...”) is in 12:12, five days before Passover (the day following 12:1 – six days...). It may not be relevant to John's intention, but I suppose the question would be: How close does John tie this dinner in with the eve of the Day of Preparation that he mentions several times in chapter 19?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I have heard it said that by the time of Jesus the Passover would have been celebrated on different days by different groups within Judaism. In particular that because of the number of lambs sacrificed many Jews would sacrifice their lambs and celebrate the Passover a day early, just to cover the practicalities of getting through all the sacrifices in the Temple. I've no idea how well supported that idea is, I can't recall off the top of my head where I heard that suggestion. It could just be one of those myths from my evangelical background, that allow a convenient reconciliation between the Gospel accounts.
I, too, have come across this theory (in various forms) over the years. Most notably, it was Jaubert who developed the theory that two different calendars were used by differing groups, resulting in Jesus celebrating the Passover meal with his disciples and yet still being crucified at the same time as the Passover lambs.
Her book on the subject - Date of the Last Supper
I am not sure that Jaubert's theory has been widely accepted. Personally, I think it tries too hard to reconcile Johannine and Synoptic timetables. I am quite happy to think that John changed the dating of the Last Supper to fit his theological framework whereby Jesus becomes the Paschal Lamb. After all, John also seems to have changed the timing of the Cleansing of the Temple (unless you conclude that this event happened TWICE - which seems highly unlikely).
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I'm still inclined to go with John's date for the crucifixion. As I've said before on a previous thread, it adds more credence to some of the events in the Synoptics if things like the arrest and trial took place before the Passover. Some of the attempts to reconcile the Synoptics and John seem rather forced. If I had to, I would argue that Jesus celebrated the meal a day early as he was aware time was running out. It may be significant that there is no mention of a lamb in the Gospels.
As to John's moving the cleansing of the Temple, you could argue that Mark moved it as he has only one journey to Jerusalem so he had no choice. John more realistically has numerous trips for the various festivals, so he places it when it occurred.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Whereas the Synoptic timetable makes much more sense to me:
Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey - a deliberate action to echo prophecies about the Messiah
Jesus then cleanses the Temple - a further throwing down of the gauntlet.
The authorities get scared because of the risk of an uprising amongst the volatile Passover crowds.
Aware that he has backed the authorities into a corner, Jesus celebrates the Passover with his disciples, when he talks about the bread and wine as his body and blood (the institution of the Eucharist can only be understood within the context of a Passover Meal)
Jesus is arrested that evening, and then tried and killed the next day.
There is little solid evidence to back up the Johannine timetable. Moreover, it is clear that John has strong theological reasons for wanting to place the death of Jesus at the point that the Passover lambs were being sacrificed. I think that we need to have a lot more before we can seriously consider the Johannine timetable being more accurate than then Synoptic one.
No-one could choose to celebrate Passover a day early - because you needed the lambs that had been sacrificed. Jaubert's theory of two Passovers is highly speculative and (as far as I know) lacking any tangible evidence to support it.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One could presumably eat the Passover meal a day later, with the lamb sacrificed on Passover. Much longer than that after the sacrifice and the quality of the meat would be questionable without refrigeration. I could imagine there being quite a substantial body of Rabbinic thought on the subject when Passover fell on a Sabbath - what's lawful, to celebrate the Passover as directed even though that involves preparing a meal on the Sabbath, or to observe the Sabbath and do the work preparing the meal the next day?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure there's a reg somewhere in the OT that allows leftovers to be eaten the next day, but on the third day that was forbidden and one was to burn up the carcass instead. It caught my eye because of the typology (compare to Jesus, who rose on the third day, though I wouldn't go so far as to say he was no longer available for the eating!).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Can I just note that it seems odd to me John would shift the whole timetable just to covertly make a theological point by identifying him with the lambs being slaughtered at that point? I mean, he never comes out and says so. We are developing all this from the phrase about the day of preparation, AFAIK. If the identification were such a big deal, wouldn't he have flagged it?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I agree Lamb Chopped - especially since in other parts of the Gospel, John explains a lot of his terms. John mentions the hour of Jesus' death, but not its significance. It's unlikely that his audience would have grasped the symbolism without an explanation. Even the reference to none of Jesus' bones being broken is more likely to be a reference to Psalm 34:20 (".....He guards every bone of his body, and not one of them is broken."), than an allusion to the Paschal Ritual.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Shabbat and the first day of Passover coinciding didn't matter since the lambs were sacrificed and cooked the day before (Passover and Shabbat start at sunset so cook in the afternoon). Shabbat falling the day before Passover was more problematic; however, apparently sacrificing the lambs for the Passover dinner was not classified as prohibited work (at least in the Talmud) though one couldn't take it home to cook until after sunset. Also apparently the lamb had to be eaten completely that evening.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I agree Lamb Chopped - especially since in other parts of the Gospel, John explains a lot of his terms.
There is a line of thought that sees almost every detail in the fourth gospel as symbolic, whether explained or not ie the five porticos at Bethesda represent the five books of Moses, the water that flowed from Jesus' side at the crucifixion is an allusion to baptism and so forth. I've never been entirely convinced by this approach, but it is possible for something to be an unexplained reference.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
No, I've never been convinced by it either. With reference to the the five porticos at Bethesda, the existence of these has been proven via archaeology. The flow of blood and water can also be explained naturally. At most this puts significant doubt on the 'everything is symbolic in John' hypothesis, at least, it shows things can be symbolic and actual.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Not sure it really gets us any further. There is no way the evangelist, or any writer, could include EVERY detail of what happened. To say that a writer chose to mention details that they thought were important (whether for symbolic purposes or not) seems self evident to me. The fact that were five porticos historically, for example, does not rule out an allegorical intention - although that example in particular has always seemed to be stretching things to me (and I lost marks in my Finals as a result).
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
With regards to the five porticoes, I have no problem with them being "real" detail and not symbolic at all. It shows that the writer knew Jerusalem. Great.
But the question of Jesus being "sacrificed" at the time of the Passover lambs is clearly symbolic. At the very start of the gospel, the writer has John the Baptist say not once but twice "Here is the Lamb of God." And the first time, he adds "...who takes away the sin of the world." Now this is a clear Johannine introduction - we have no evidence in any of the other gospels that John spoke of Jesus in this way.
Now this seems very significant to me. First of all, the writer takes pains to introduce this concept. Secondly, the concept is immediate repeated for emphasis. So it is not surprising that at the end of the gospel, we see Jesus being the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
To deny or belittle the symbolism at work here misunderstands what the writer is doing. That doesn't mean that the Johannine timetable is automatically and definitely "wrong", but it should raise question marks in our minds when we are trying to compare it with the Synoptic timetable (which doesn't have such obvious symbolism going on).
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Here's someone who believes that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday and that Jesus really was in the grave for three days and nights. It's an interesting perspective and one worth consideration I think.
Wednesday Crucifixion
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
The only problem with the is as far as I am aware, is that the Passover Lamb wasn't a sin offering, so we could be projecting an idea onto John which he didn't hold. The Greek term might be a mistranslation of an Aramaic word which could mean both lamb and servant.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's someone who believes that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday and that Jesus really was in the grave for three days and nights. It's an interesting perspective and one worth consideration I think.
Wednesday Crucifixion
My understanding is that the phrase "a-day-and-a-night" is an idiom in Hebrew/Aramaic, meaning basically "a day, or any part of it." Compare the English use of the word "weekend," which includes Sunday (technically the beginning, not the end of a week) and which may or may not include Friday afternoon and evening, depending on circumstances. E.g, "we're going camping this weekend" may easily mean "we're leaving at 4 pm Friday and returning Sunday morning at 9.
Since the Jews counted days as beginning at sunset, Jesus was indeed dead for three Jewish days--the last three or four hours of Thur/Fri, all of Fri/Sat, and the first few hours of Sat/Sun.
It makes sense to me, anyway.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's someone who believes that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday and that Jesus really was in the grave for three days and nights. It's an interesting perspective and one worth consideration I think.
Wednesday Crucifixion
a very odd article - if true, Jesus was in the tomb fore four nights.
Yes, that's true. However, if Jesus was crucified in 34 AD you could have three days and three nights, the crucifixion on Thursday 14th Nissan, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (a High Sabbath) on the Friday 15th Nissan, a normal Sabbath on Saturday 16th Nissan and the Resurrection on Sunday 17th Nissan. This would tie in with the author's point about Matthew 28:1 reading, "After the Sabbaths..." (two consecutive holy days) rather than "after the Sabbath".
[ 16. April 2014, 17:27: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Scratch the above post. I'm now totally confused. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Please be patient with me. leo, would this chronology work for a Wednesday crucifixion but only three "nights" in the tomb?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
LC: quote:
Compare the English use of the word "weekend," which includes Sunday (technically the beginning, not the end of a week)
Don't know what it's like in the States, but it's almost impossible to convince a British teenager of this. These days they all KNOW Monday is the start of the week; so much so that I've given up arguing with them. At the end of the day there are many, many more important things they need to know.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
There is a theory that the plural of Sabbath in Matthew 28:1 doesn't refer to two consecutive Sabbaths, but is simply an idiom where the term Sabbath was used as a shorthand for the whole week I.e. from Sabbath to Sabbath. This is reflected in the parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee where the Pharisee is literally described as fasting "twice a Sabbath" I.e. twice a week.
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/two-sabbaths-of-matthew-28.html?m=1
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
LC: quote:
Compare the English use of the word "weekend," which includes Sunday (technically the beginning, not the end of a week)
Don't know what it's like in the States, but it's almost impossible to convince a British teenager of this. These days they all KNOW Monday is the start of the week; so much so that I've given up arguing with them. At the end of the day there are many, many more important things they need to know.
Well, yes, but teenagers are a species unto themselves.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Indeed
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
