an examination of the last supper in the light of jewish cultural backgrounds

71
AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS ___________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of New Testament Dallas Theological Seminary ___________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy ___________________ by Joel Thomas April 2007

Upload: joel-thomas

Post on 10-Apr-2015

398 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER

IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

___________________

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of New Testament

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

___________________

by

Joel Thomas

April 2007

Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

Examining Committee

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION 1

The Purpose of the Thesis

The Procedure for the Thesis

2 POTENTIAL MEALS 12

Kiddush

Habburah

Qumran Meal

Normal Meal

Passover Meal

Conclusion

3 GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS 39

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Calendar Differences

Conclusion

4 CONCLUSION 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

1 En 1 Enoch

Ant Jewish Antiquities or Antiquities of the Jews

Contempl Life On the Contemplative Life

Did Didache

Jos Asen Joseph and Aseneth

Jub Jubilees

JW Jewish War or Wars of the Jews

m Mishnah

Spec Laws On the Special Laws or The Special Laws

t Tosefta

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Thesis

Presentation of the Problem

There seem to be as many controversies in New Testament studies as there are

scholars but even with the great many controversies and interpretational difficulties in the

discipline of New Testament studies some issues are much more vexing than others

There is very little controversy in New Testament scholarship concerning the fact that

Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples1 however the specific nature and identification of

the meal is most definitely in question The purpose of this thesis is to examine the

evidence and controversies regarding the identification of the Last Supper Jesus ate with

his disciples

In fact it would seem at first glance to be quite a mystery as to how anything

could be controversial about this event because it is recorded in all four of the gospels as

well as being alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians2 Robert F OrsquoToole seems to crystallize

the state of scholarship concerning the Last Supper when he states ldquoNumerous analyses

1 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1951

2 R H Stein ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green Scot

McKnight and I Howard Marshall (Downers Grove IL InterVarsity Press 1992) 444

2

of the Last Supper have led to a remarkable variety of interpretations many of which

appear to have been influenced by the confessional stances of their proponentsrdquo3

The primary reason for this problem is that the Synoptic Gospels seem to

present the Last Supper as being a Passover meal and that Jesus died on Passover While

John 1828 seems to present the Last Supper as happening one day earlier and that Jesus

died on the day before the Passover when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed4

C K Barrett states this clearly in his commentary on John

According to Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) the last supper was a

Passover meal that is it was eaten in the early hours of Nisan 15 the arrest and

trial took place in the same night and in the course of the next (solar) day Jesus

was crucified All the events took place on Nisan 15 (which extended in the year

of the passion from about 6 pm on a Thursday to 6 pm on Friday) According

to John (see 131 1828 1914 31 42 and the notes) the crucifixion happened on

Nisan 14 the day before the Passover the last supper must have been eaten the

preceding evening Thus the events are set a day earlier than in Mark and the last

supper is no longer the Paschal meal Jesus died at the time when the Passover

sacrifices were being killed in the Temple5

In order to prepare for the presentation of the thesis which this thesis will

argue it is necessary to present the basic biblical evidence The biblical evidence will be

presented in the following manner by detailing relevant data from both the Synoptic

Gospels and from the Gospel of John

3 Robert F OrsquoToole ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman

vol 4 (New York NY Doubleday 1992) 234

4 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ed

D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 455

5 C K Barrett The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed (Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978) 48

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

Examining Committee

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION 1

The Purpose of the Thesis

The Procedure for the Thesis

2 POTENTIAL MEALS 12

Kiddush

Habburah

Qumran Meal

Normal Meal

Passover Meal

Conclusion

3 GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS 39

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Calendar Differences

Conclusion

4 CONCLUSION 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

1 En 1 Enoch

Ant Jewish Antiquities or Antiquities of the Jews

Contempl Life On the Contemplative Life

Did Didache

Jos Asen Joseph and Aseneth

Jub Jubilees

JW Jewish War or Wars of the Jews

m Mishnah

Spec Laws On the Special Laws or The Special Laws

t Tosefta

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Thesis

Presentation of the Problem

There seem to be as many controversies in New Testament studies as there are

scholars but even with the great many controversies and interpretational difficulties in the

discipline of New Testament studies some issues are much more vexing than others

There is very little controversy in New Testament scholarship concerning the fact that

Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples1 however the specific nature and identification of

the meal is most definitely in question The purpose of this thesis is to examine the

evidence and controversies regarding the identification of the Last Supper Jesus ate with

his disciples

In fact it would seem at first glance to be quite a mystery as to how anything

could be controversial about this event because it is recorded in all four of the gospels as

well as being alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians2 Robert F OrsquoToole seems to crystallize

the state of scholarship concerning the Last Supper when he states ldquoNumerous analyses

1 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1951

2 R H Stein ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green Scot

McKnight and I Howard Marshall (Downers Grove IL InterVarsity Press 1992) 444

2

of the Last Supper have led to a remarkable variety of interpretations many of which

appear to have been influenced by the confessional stances of their proponentsrdquo3

The primary reason for this problem is that the Synoptic Gospels seem to

present the Last Supper as being a Passover meal and that Jesus died on Passover While

John 1828 seems to present the Last Supper as happening one day earlier and that Jesus

died on the day before the Passover when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed4

C K Barrett states this clearly in his commentary on John

According to Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) the last supper was a

Passover meal that is it was eaten in the early hours of Nisan 15 the arrest and

trial took place in the same night and in the course of the next (solar) day Jesus

was crucified All the events took place on Nisan 15 (which extended in the year

of the passion from about 6 pm on a Thursday to 6 pm on Friday) According

to John (see 131 1828 1914 31 42 and the notes) the crucifixion happened on

Nisan 14 the day before the Passover the last supper must have been eaten the

preceding evening Thus the events are set a day earlier than in Mark and the last

supper is no longer the Paschal meal Jesus died at the time when the Passover

sacrifices were being killed in the Temple5

In order to prepare for the presentation of the thesis which this thesis will

argue it is necessary to present the basic biblical evidence The biblical evidence will be

presented in the following manner by detailing relevant data from both the Synoptic

Gospels and from the Gospel of John

3 Robert F OrsquoToole ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman

vol 4 (New York NY Doubleday 1992) 234

4 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ed

D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 455

5 C K Barrett The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed (Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978) 48

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 3: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION 1

The Purpose of the Thesis

The Procedure for the Thesis

2 POTENTIAL MEALS 12

Kiddush

Habburah

Qumran Meal

Normal Meal

Passover Meal

Conclusion

3 GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS 39

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Calendar Differences

Conclusion

4 CONCLUSION 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

1 En 1 Enoch

Ant Jewish Antiquities or Antiquities of the Jews

Contempl Life On the Contemplative Life

Did Didache

Jos Asen Joseph and Aseneth

Jub Jubilees

JW Jewish War or Wars of the Jews

m Mishnah

Spec Laws On the Special Laws or The Special Laws

t Tosefta

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Thesis

Presentation of the Problem

There seem to be as many controversies in New Testament studies as there are

scholars but even with the great many controversies and interpretational difficulties in the

discipline of New Testament studies some issues are much more vexing than others

There is very little controversy in New Testament scholarship concerning the fact that

Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples1 however the specific nature and identification of

the meal is most definitely in question The purpose of this thesis is to examine the

evidence and controversies regarding the identification of the Last Supper Jesus ate with

his disciples

In fact it would seem at first glance to be quite a mystery as to how anything

could be controversial about this event because it is recorded in all four of the gospels as

well as being alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians2 Robert F OrsquoToole seems to crystallize

the state of scholarship concerning the Last Supper when he states ldquoNumerous analyses

1 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1951

2 R H Stein ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green Scot

McKnight and I Howard Marshall (Downers Grove IL InterVarsity Press 1992) 444

2

of the Last Supper have led to a remarkable variety of interpretations many of which

appear to have been influenced by the confessional stances of their proponentsrdquo3

The primary reason for this problem is that the Synoptic Gospels seem to

present the Last Supper as being a Passover meal and that Jesus died on Passover While

John 1828 seems to present the Last Supper as happening one day earlier and that Jesus

died on the day before the Passover when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed4

C K Barrett states this clearly in his commentary on John

According to Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) the last supper was a

Passover meal that is it was eaten in the early hours of Nisan 15 the arrest and

trial took place in the same night and in the course of the next (solar) day Jesus

was crucified All the events took place on Nisan 15 (which extended in the year

of the passion from about 6 pm on a Thursday to 6 pm on Friday) According

to John (see 131 1828 1914 31 42 and the notes) the crucifixion happened on

Nisan 14 the day before the Passover the last supper must have been eaten the

preceding evening Thus the events are set a day earlier than in Mark and the last

supper is no longer the Paschal meal Jesus died at the time when the Passover

sacrifices were being killed in the Temple5

In order to prepare for the presentation of the thesis which this thesis will

argue it is necessary to present the basic biblical evidence The biblical evidence will be

presented in the following manner by detailing relevant data from both the Synoptic

Gospels and from the Gospel of John

3 Robert F OrsquoToole ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman

vol 4 (New York NY Doubleday 1992) 234

4 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ed

D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 455

5 C K Barrett The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed (Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978) 48

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 4: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

1 En 1 Enoch

Ant Jewish Antiquities or Antiquities of the Jews

Contempl Life On the Contemplative Life

Did Didache

Jos Asen Joseph and Aseneth

Jub Jubilees

JW Jewish War or Wars of the Jews

m Mishnah

Spec Laws On the Special Laws or The Special Laws

t Tosefta

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Thesis

Presentation of the Problem

There seem to be as many controversies in New Testament studies as there are

scholars but even with the great many controversies and interpretational difficulties in the

discipline of New Testament studies some issues are much more vexing than others

There is very little controversy in New Testament scholarship concerning the fact that

Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples1 however the specific nature and identification of

the meal is most definitely in question The purpose of this thesis is to examine the

evidence and controversies regarding the identification of the Last Supper Jesus ate with

his disciples

In fact it would seem at first glance to be quite a mystery as to how anything

could be controversial about this event because it is recorded in all four of the gospels as

well as being alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians2 Robert F OrsquoToole seems to crystallize

the state of scholarship concerning the Last Supper when he states ldquoNumerous analyses

1 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1951

2 R H Stein ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green Scot

McKnight and I Howard Marshall (Downers Grove IL InterVarsity Press 1992) 444

2

of the Last Supper have led to a remarkable variety of interpretations many of which

appear to have been influenced by the confessional stances of their proponentsrdquo3

The primary reason for this problem is that the Synoptic Gospels seem to

present the Last Supper as being a Passover meal and that Jesus died on Passover While

John 1828 seems to present the Last Supper as happening one day earlier and that Jesus

died on the day before the Passover when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed4

C K Barrett states this clearly in his commentary on John

According to Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) the last supper was a

Passover meal that is it was eaten in the early hours of Nisan 15 the arrest and

trial took place in the same night and in the course of the next (solar) day Jesus

was crucified All the events took place on Nisan 15 (which extended in the year

of the passion from about 6 pm on a Thursday to 6 pm on Friday) According

to John (see 131 1828 1914 31 42 and the notes) the crucifixion happened on

Nisan 14 the day before the Passover the last supper must have been eaten the

preceding evening Thus the events are set a day earlier than in Mark and the last

supper is no longer the Paschal meal Jesus died at the time when the Passover

sacrifices were being killed in the Temple5

In order to prepare for the presentation of the thesis which this thesis will

argue it is necessary to present the basic biblical evidence The biblical evidence will be

presented in the following manner by detailing relevant data from both the Synoptic

Gospels and from the Gospel of John

3 Robert F OrsquoToole ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman

vol 4 (New York NY Doubleday 1992) 234

4 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ed

D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 455

5 C K Barrett The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed (Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978) 48

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 5: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Thesis

Presentation of the Problem

There seem to be as many controversies in New Testament studies as there are

scholars but even with the great many controversies and interpretational difficulties in the

discipline of New Testament studies some issues are much more vexing than others

There is very little controversy in New Testament scholarship concerning the fact that

Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples1 however the specific nature and identification of

the meal is most definitely in question The purpose of this thesis is to examine the

evidence and controversies regarding the identification of the Last Supper Jesus ate with

his disciples

In fact it would seem at first glance to be quite a mystery as to how anything

could be controversial about this event because it is recorded in all four of the gospels as

well as being alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians2 Robert F OrsquoToole seems to crystallize

the state of scholarship concerning the Last Supper when he states ldquoNumerous analyses

1 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1951

2 R H Stein ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green Scot

McKnight and I Howard Marshall (Downers Grove IL InterVarsity Press 1992) 444

2

of the Last Supper have led to a remarkable variety of interpretations many of which

appear to have been influenced by the confessional stances of their proponentsrdquo3

The primary reason for this problem is that the Synoptic Gospels seem to

present the Last Supper as being a Passover meal and that Jesus died on Passover While

John 1828 seems to present the Last Supper as happening one day earlier and that Jesus

died on the day before the Passover when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed4

C K Barrett states this clearly in his commentary on John

According to Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) the last supper was a

Passover meal that is it was eaten in the early hours of Nisan 15 the arrest and

trial took place in the same night and in the course of the next (solar) day Jesus

was crucified All the events took place on Nisan 15 (which extended in the year

of the passion from about 6 pm on a Thursday to 6 pm on Friday) According

to John (see 131 1828 1914 31 42 and the notes) the crucifixion happened on

Nisan 14 the day before the Passover the last supper must have been eaten the

preceding evening Thus the events are set a day earlier than in Mark and the last

supper is no longer the Paschal meal Jesus died at the time when the Passover

sacrifices were being killed in the Temple5

In order to prepare for the presentation of the thesis which this thesis will

argue it is necessary to present the basic biblical evidence The biblical evidence will be

presented in the following manner by detailing relevant data from both the Synoptic

Gospels and from the Gospel of John

3 Robert F OrsquoToole ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman

vol 4 (New York NY Doubleday 1992) 234

4 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ed

D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 455

5 C K Barrett The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed (Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978) 48

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 6: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

2

of the Last Supper have led to a remarkable variety of interpretations many of which

appear to have been influenced by the confessional stances of their proponentsrdquo3

The primary reason for this problem is that the Synoptic Gospels seem to

present the Last Supper as being a Passover meal and that Jesus died on Passover While

John 1828 seems to present the Last Supper as happening one day earlier and that Jesus

died on the day before the Passover when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed4

C K Barrett states this clearly in his commentary on John

According to Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) the last supper was a

Passover meal that is it was eaten in the early hours of Nisan 15 the arrest and

trial took place in the same night and in the course of the next (solar) day Jesus

was crucified All the events took place on Nisan 15 (which extended in the year

of the passion from about 6 pm on a Thursday to 6 pm on Friday) According

to John (see 131 1828 1914 31 42 and the notes) the crucifixion happened on

Nisan 14 the day before the Passover the last supper must have been eaten the

preceding evening Thus the events are set a day earlier than in Mark and the last

supper is no longer the Paschal meal Jesus died at the time when the Passover

sacrifices were being killed in the Temple5

In order to prepare for the presentation of the thesis which this thesis will

argue it is necessary to present the basic biblical evidence The biblical evidence will be

presented in the following manner by detailing relevant data from both the Synoptic

Gospels and from the Gospel of John

3 Robert F OrsquoToole ldquoLast Supperrdquo in Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel Freedman

vol 4 (New York NY Doubleday 1992) 234

4 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series ed

D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 455

5 C K Barrett The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed (Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978) 48

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 7: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

3

Synoptic Gospel Data

The Synoptic Gospels present the following picture of the Last Supper The

meal is presented as having the following characteristics The first set of evidence is

found in Matt 2617 Mark 1412 Luke 2276 In Mark 1412 the preparations for the

Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 2278

Matthew 2617 in contrast omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day

when the sacrifices occurred9

In addition all of the synoptic accounts describe this day as being at the

beginning of the feast of Unleavened Bread (although there are small differences in the

actual wording) In Matt 2617 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred

was referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo10 In Luke 227 the day is referred

to as lsquothe day of Unleavened Breadrsquo11 Lastly in Mark 1412 the day in question is

6 Kurt Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum 12th ed (Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001) 280

7 James A Brooks Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 23 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991) 224

8 Robert H Stein Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

(Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992) 537-38

9 Leon Morris The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992) 653

10 John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005) 1061-62

11 I Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament Commentary

ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1978) 791

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 8: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

4

referred to as lsquothe first day of Unleavened Breadrsquo12

The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts

is found in Matt 2617b-20 Mark 1412b-17 Luke 228-1413 In the first two accounts

there is an explicit question from the disciples to Jesus asking him about where Jesus

wanted to celebrate the eating of the Passover meal14 In all three accounts there is basic

agreement concerning where Jesus intended the Last Supper to be eaten The disciples

were instructed to go into the city where they would they would find a man who had an

extra room in his house15 Based on this data it is clear that Jesus intended to eat the Last

Supper within the boundaries of Jerusalem This seems especially significant since Jesus

and the disciples had been staying in Bethany and so they must have made a specific

conscious choice to celebrate the Last Supper in Jerusalem16 It is also clear from these

passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather

than with his human family17

A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2620 and Mark 1417

which both state that this particular meal was held at night18 This data is in accordance

12 Craig A Evans Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers 2001) 373

13 Aland Synopsis of the Four Gospels 280

14 Evans Mark 827ndash1620 373

15 Craig A Evans Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

(Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990) 316

16 Brooks Mark 224

17 Craig Blomberg Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David S

Dockery vol 22 (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001) 387

18 Nolland The Gospel of Matthew 1065

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 9: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

5

with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12819 as well

as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period20

A fourth important piece of biblical data is also found in the same passage

These verses describe the meal as having been eaten while reclining The word in this

passage is defined as ldquoreclining at a tablerdquo during the process of dining21 This is the

consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages Mark 1418

1614 Matt 910 2210 11 267 20 Luke 2227 John 611 122 1323 2822

A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 2623 and Mark

1420 In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish23

Sixthly in the description (Matt 2626-29 Mark 1422-25 Luke 2215-20) of

the actual meal there are several important pieces of information The first piece of

information is that Jesus is described as giving thanks for the bread and wine during the

meal24 A second important piece of information is that Jesus is described as providing an

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 46

20 Jub 49112

21Walter Bauer A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature rev and ed Frederick William Danker 3d ed (Chicago University of Chicago Press 2000)

65

22 Rostock Buumlchsel ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1964) 654-55

23 Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels trans Paul P Levertoff (London

SPCK 1929 reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004) 121

24 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1399

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 10: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

6

interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup25 The last

significant piece of information concerning the actual meal which is found in Matt 2630

and Mark 1426 is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang

hymns26

The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels which is found in all

three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 2630 Mark 1426 Luke 2239) is that instead of returning

to Bethany where he was staying Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives27

This piece of evidence is especially important because it is in accord with the customs

surrounding the Passover Segal points out that this is a possible allusion to Deut 16

where the people are told to depart to their tents on the morning after Passover even

though he does not think that this allusion to Deut 16 is likely28 Segal seems to be

missing a critical point because Jesus did not in fact return to where he was staying

(Bethany) for the remainder of that night Another point that must be considered is that

while the Mount of Olives was located outside the walls of Jerusalem29 there seems to be

evidence that at Passover ldquothe Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of

25 R T France The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 2002) 568

26 Robert H Gundry Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982) 529

27 Robert H Gundry Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross vol 2 (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993) 844

28 J B Segal The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 (London Oxford

University Press 1963) 246

29 Ezra P Gould A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896) 266

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 11: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

7

lsquogreater Jerusalemrsquordquo30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an

expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover33 This evidence shows that not only

did Jesus not return to Bethany where he was staying but that Jesus did not even leave

Jerusalem

The summary of the biblical data gleaned from the account recorded in the

Synoptic Gospels is as follows First the Synoptic Gospels clearly present the preparation

for the Last Supper as having been made on the day when the Passover lambs were

sacrificed Second it seems clear from the data that Jesus intended to eat a Passover meal

with his disciples in an upper room within the walls of Jerusalem Third the account

reveals that the meal was eaten after sunset Fourth the account describes the meal as

having been eaten in a reclining position rather than the normal sitting position Fifth

morsels were dipped by each participant Sixth the account describes three specific

events as happening at the meal The first event was that Jesus gave thanks for the bread

and the wine used in the meal The second event was that Jesus offered words of

interpretation over the bread and wine The last event was that at the end of the meal

Jesus and his disciples sang hymns The last significant piece of data is that Jesus and the

disciples rather than returning to Bethany went to the Mount of Olives after the meal

30 Brooks Mark 230

31 Josephus JW 210-13

32 m Pesaḥim 510 712-13 101-3

33 Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 1952

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 12: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

8

Based on this evidence it seems very clear from the data that the Synoptic

Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal that was celebrated according to

Jewish custom during the night of Passover

Gospel of John Data

The discussion of the biblical data from the Gospel of John will be divided

into two topics The first topic is the identification of the chronological markers in the

Johannine narrative The second topic is the specific details that are revealed within the

narrative concerning the actual meal

There are three significant chronological markers in the text (John 131

1828 1914)34 The context of John 131 indicates that the events that will transpire later

in the chapter happen before the feast of Passover This seems to contradict the

chronology that is presented in the Synoptic Gospels35 John 1828 clearly sets the trial of

Jesus on the day before the Passover by explicitly stating that Jewish leaders would not

enter the Praetorium because if they did they would become ceremonially unclean and

they would not be able to eat the Passover meal36 John 1914 presents the information

that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the lsquoday of preparation for

34 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 555

35 Craig S Keener The Gospel of John A Commentary vol 2 (Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003) 899

36 Gerald L Borchert John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B (Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2002) 238

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 13: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

9

the Passoverrsquo37 Beasley-Murray in his John commentary points out three significant

events that occur at the sixth hour (noon) of the day before Passover when he states ldquoIt is

the sixth hour (noon) of the Preparation Day at this hour three things take place Jews

cease their work leaven is gathered out of the houses and burned and the slaughtering of

the Passover lambs commencesrdquo38 Based on these statements Johnrsquos gospel seems to

preclude the Last Supper from being a Passover meal because it was held on the night

before the Passover lambs were sacrificed

The second type of biblical data from Johnrsquos gospel consists of any evidence

that would help to clarify the nature of the Last Supper Because the meal is simply

assumed by the account in John there is less information The first piece of information is

that Jesus is described as dipping a morsel and then giving this piece to the traitor Judas

This is in accordance with the description in the Synoptic Gospels39 A second piece of

information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining

position40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels A third

piece of information found in 1330 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed

37 R V G Tasker The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1988) 209

38 George R Beasley-Murray John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 (Nashville TN Thomas Nelson Publishers

1999) 341

39 Leon Morris The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1995)

557

40 J H Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

ed A H McNeile vol 2 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928) 471

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 14: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

10

as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts41 A

fourth piece of information is found in John 1310 where we can see that the meal was

eaten in ritual purity42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 181 where it is clear

that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem43 The last piece of information

is found in John 1329 where it appears that the disciples thought that Judas left the meal

because Jesus wanted him to either purchase some additional supplies for the feast or

perhaps to give money to the poor44

Based on this biblical evidence it looks as if John has placed the Last Supper

chronologically one day off from the synoptic account In contrast the small amount of

information about the meal seems to conform to the nature of the Passover meal

Initial Conclusions

Based on the preceding evidence there appears to be a contradiction between

the chronologies The remainder of this study will attempt to reconcile these two

chronologies

The Procedure for the Thesis

The argument of this thesis is that there is actually no contradiction between

the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and that there is a reasonable harmonization

41 Carson The Gospel according to John 476

42 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 49

43 F F Bruce The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983) 339

44 Bernard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John

2475

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 15: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

11

between the two accounts This thesis statement will be supported in two different ways

in the second and third chapters of this thesis The second chapter of this thesis will

examine possible Jewish meals that have been proposed as being the Last Supper The

third chapter of this thesis will examine various chronological harmonization proposals

that attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 16: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

12

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL MEALS

Kiddush

The basic argument of this view is that Jesus celebrated his last meal with his

disciples on Thursday Nisan 14 which culminated with the weekly blessing or Kiddush1

Oesterley describes the practice as follows

These weekly gatherings were arranged by small groups or societies of

friends Such societies were called Chaburoth (sing Chaburah) from the word

Chaber a lsquocomradersquo lsquocompanionrsquo or lsquofriendrsquo The social quasi-religious meal

began fairly early in the afternoon and was drawn out by conversation and

discussion of religious questions until dusk Then the meal was interrupted

because the Sabbath was about to commence He who presided at the table took a

cup of wine and said a benediction over it for what was called the lsquosanctification

of the dayrsquo (Kedushath ha-yom)

Elbogen says that lsquoon ordinary days was customary in aristocratic circles to

partake of the meal at the ninth hour (Pes 107b) on Fridays however it was

postponed by classes to night-time (Tos Ber v 3)rsquo This was according to Rabbi

Meir (second century A D) the latest limit the rule as a matter of fact was to

begin the meal earlier for as it marked the actual beginning of the Sabbath

observance the earlier it began the more meritorious was it considered to be (Pes

105b) As late as the Tannaitic period there is no doubt that the meal began during

the daylight (Tos Ber v 2 cp also Pes 100a 102a) In these last two passages it

is said that darkness supervened lsquoduring the mealrsquo and that the Sabbath which

then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (ie the Kiddush cup )2

Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that ldquoSmall groups of

friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social

1 W O E Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965) 167

2 Ibid 167-68

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 17: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

13

meal as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional quasi-charitable

organizationsrdquo3 Maxfield points out that ldquoKiddush was a very old custom The Talmud

(Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagoguerdquo4 Dibelius assumes this

view without giving any additional supporting evidence5

In analyzing this meal type it is important to point out three major problems

with this proposal The first problem is that all the evidence presented for this view is

very late The second problem is that if the Passover and the Sabbath fell on the same day

the Kiddush should have been said at sundown on Friday evening This view assumes

that the meal in question was not a Passover meal and that the meal was held on

Thursday afternoon Oesterley attempts to deal with this issue by appealing to a special

rule that allowed for the weekly Kiddush to be moved up one day when the Sabbath

coincided with a feast day The problem with this is that there is no evidence of this

happening during the time of Christ The only evidence that Oesterley cites is from the

Talmud (Pesaḥim VI 1ff)6 This evidence is not germane to the discussion since it only

deals with the general concept of feast days superseding the Sabbath and not with this

specific issue Also by Oesterleyrsquos own admission that ldquothe day of Preparation was not

3 F Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London SPCK 1928

reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998) 64-65

4 T H W Maxfield The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy

Communion Service (Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933) 23

5 Martin Dibelius Jesus trans Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant (Philadelphia

Westminster Press 1949) 132

6 Oesterley The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy 175

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 18: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

14

regarded as the official first day of the Feastrdquo7 He goes on to say with no supporting

evidence that ldquoas being the day on which the Passover lambs were sacrificed (cp Exod

xii 2 6) it was in a real sense the introduction of the feastrdquo8 The third problem is that

the both Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John clearly set the meal in the evening as

opposed to the normal afternoon meal (see Chapter 1 for supporting evidence) Again

Oesterley attempts to mitigate this problem but he does not give any evidence that the

meal began before sunset9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10

which states ldquo53 A Guests who were sitting [and eating] with a householder when the

Sabbath began B and they [the guests] got up at nightfall and went to the house of study

and returned and then the cup [of wine] was mixed for themndashC ldquothey recite over it [ie

the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the dayrdquo the word of R Judah D

R Yose says ldquoThey may continue to eat until it grows darkrdquordquo11 This evidence

contradicts his point and argues that eating after sunset on a Sabbath was unacceptable

Habburah

This view is related to the explanation in the previous section As was pointed

out these types of meals were a common and recognized part of first century Jewish

life12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states

7 Ibid

8 Ibid

9 Ibid 177

10 Ibid 168-69

11 t Berakhot 53

12 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66-67

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 19: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

15

(213) Julius Caius praetor [consul] of Rome to the magistrates senate and

people of the Parians sendeth greeting The Jews of Delos and some other Jews

that sojourn there in the presence of your ambassadors signified to us that by a

decree of yours you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers

and their way of sacred worship (214) Now it does not please me that such

decrees should be made against our friends and confederates whereby they are

forbidden to live according to their own customs or to bring in contributions for

common suppers and holy festivals while they are not forbidden so to do even at

Rome itself (215) for even Caius Caesar our imperator and consul in that decree

wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city did yet permit these

Jews and these only both to bring in their contributions and to make their

common suppers (216) Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I

permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and

laws of their forefathers and to persist therein It will be therefore good for you

that if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates to

abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition towards us13

Gavin uses this to explicitly support his thesis concerning the presence of

Haburrah meal in the first century AD However this text really only shows that Jews

met together for meals that contained a religious ritual component with Roman

government permission

Gavin points out several characteristics of these Habburah meals when he

states ldquoThe ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the

bread and winerdquo14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix a supporter of

this view when he states ldquoThey are largely the same as those which were carried out at

the chief meal of the day in every pious jewish household though they were probably

observed with more formality and exactness in a charburah than at the purely domestic

meal of a familyrdquo15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but

13 Josephus Ant 14213-16

14 Gavin The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments 66

15 Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy (London Dacre Press 1945 reprint London Adam

amp Charles Black 1978) 51

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 20: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

16

the only support he gives for how the blessings were conducted is based on a citation

from the Mishnah which states ldquoA [If] they sat down [to eat] each one recites the

[required] blessing for himself B [If] they reclined one recites the blessing for all of

them C [If] wine came to them in the midst of the meal each recites the blessing for

himself D [If wine came] after the meal one recites the blessing for all E And [this one]

says [the blessing] over the perfume [used to freshen the room] F Even though they bring

the perfume only after the dinnerrdquo16 The problem with this passage is that it does not

actually give evidence for a specific order of blessings for any meal In fact it does not

even describe a meal at all The passage really only describes what should happen at a

meal when some event occurs Dix in a footnote makes a revealing comment in stating

The question of the function and even the existence of the chaburoth in the first

century has been disputed It seems certain that among the Pharisees [sic] they

were chiefly concerned with a scrupulous observance of the laws of killing and

ritual lsquocleannessrsquo (Cf Jewish Encycl vi 121 b) But there are indications of a

wider and more purely social nature assumed by such societies in some social

circles not least in the regulations recorded in the tractate Berakoth for their

common meals Nevertheless those who disbelieve in the existence of this earlier

type of chaburoth have only to omit the word from this chapter and accept the

regulations cited as governing any rather formal evening meal in a pious jewish

household and they will not I think disagree with their application to the last

supper in the form here put forward17

Basically what Dix is saying is that it is very possible that the Last Supper was

simply a normal Jewish meal and that his argument will not be impacted by that fact The

problem with that is that rationally he cannot have it both ways Either the Haburah is a

possibility or it is not

16 m Berakhot 66

17 Dix The Shape of the Liturgy 50 n1

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 21: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

17

Neusner argues for a different understanding of the basic nature of the

Haburah when he states ldquoAmong those sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some

who entered into an urban religious communion a mostly unorganized society known as

the fellowship (havurah) The basis of this society was meticulous observance of laws of

tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the Temple

where they were not mandatoryrdquo18

This view should be rejected for two reasons The first reason is that the

Haburah is not very distinct from a normal afternoon meal The second reason is that

from rabbinical sources we know that the Haburah was primarily connected with various

rituals or duties that might need to be performed such as engagements weddings

circumcisions and funerals19 This view like the previous one stems from the fact that

the proponents have decided in favor of the Johannine chronology and are scrambling to

find an appropriate meal to substitute for the Passover

Qumran Meal

In this section we will examine two related but slightly different possible links

between the Last Supper and the ascetic Qumran community The first link that will be

examined in this section is a possible relationship between the community meal of

Qumran and the Last Supper The second link is that the Jewish story of Joseph and

Aseneth could provide a background for the Last Supper

18 Jacob Neusner Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984) 27

19 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 30

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 22: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

18

Before looking at any connections between the community meal of the

Qumran community and the Last Supper it is necessary to identify the characteristics of

the meal from primary source documents20 The relevant passage from Josephus states

(128) And as for their piety towards God it is very extraordinary for before

sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters but put up certain prayers

which they have received from their forefathers as if they made a supplication for

its rising (129) After this every one of them are sent away by their curators to

exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled in which they labor with

great diligence till the fifth hour After which they assemble themselves together

again into one place and when they have clothed themselves in white veils they

then bathe their bodies in cold water And after this purification is over they

every one meet together in an apartment of their own into which it is not

permitted to any of another sect to enter while they go after a pure manner into

the dining room as into a certain holy temple (130) and quietly set themselves

down upon which the baker lays them loaves in order the cook also brings a

single place of one sort of food and sets it before every one of them (131) but a

priest says grace before meat and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food

before grace be said The same priest when he hath dined says grace again after

meat and when they begin and when they end they praise God as he that

bestows their food upon them after which they lay aside their [white] garments

and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening (132) then they return

home to supper after the same manner and if there be any strangers there they

set down with them Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their

house but they give every one leave to speak in their turn (133) which silence

thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery the

cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise and the same settled

measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them and that such as is abundantly

sufficient for them21

The second relevant passage is 1QS VI 1-6 which states

1 hellip And in addition no-one should raise a matter against his fellow in front of

the Many unless it is with reproof in the presence of witnesses In this way 2 shall

they behave in all their places of residence Whenever one fellow meets another

the junior shall obey the senior in work and in money They shall eat together 3

together they shall bless and together they shall take counsel In every place

20 Karl Georg Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo in The Scrolls

and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl (New York Harper amp Brothers Publishers 1957)

66-67

21 Josephus JW 2128-33

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 23: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

19

where there are ten men of the Community council there should not be a priest

missing amongst them 4 And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine

5 for drinking the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first 6 to bless the first

fruits of the bread and of the new wine And in the place in which the Ten

assemble there should not be missing a man to interpret the law day and night22

The third relevant passage is 1QSa II 17-22 which states

17 hellip And [when] they gather at the table of the community [or to drink] the new

wine and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed]

for drinking [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19

and of the [new wine] before the priest for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-

fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the

bread before them Afterwards the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21

towards the bread [And afterwards shall] bless all the congregation of the

community each [one according to] his dignity And in accordance with this

regulation they shall act 22 at each me[al when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered23

Kuhn provides a helpful comparison of seven concepts24 that can be collected

from the previously cited Qumran and Josephus texts The first key concept found in

Josephus is that a ritual bath was necessary before a meal There is also a heavy

emphasis on ritual immersions throughout the Qumran documents25 The second key

concept also found in Josephus is that after the bath they go to a specific place to

assemble for the meal Again this is not explicitly mentioned in the Qumran documents

but archeological excavations have uncovered dinning halls at Qumran used for this

purpose26 The third key concept that Josephus highlights is that only initiated members of

the community are permitted to eat the meal This agrees completely with Qumran

22 1QS VI 1-6

23 1QSa II 17-22

24 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 67-70

25 Ibid 67-68

26 Ibid 68

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 24: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

20

documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal27 The fourth key

concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their

rank within the group28 This can be clearly seen in Josephus (in the idea of them sitting in

silence) as well as in 1QS VI 10-11 which states more explicitly ldquoNo-one should talk

during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking And neither

should he speak before one whose rank is listed 11 before his ownrdquo29 The fifth key

concept is that the members of the groups sit according to their rank This is seen both in

Josephus and in 1 QS VI 4 which states ldquoand they sit each according to his place before

himrdquo30 The sixth concept is that no one could eat the dinner before it was blessed by the

presiding priest This is not seen in Josephus but is seen both in 1QS VI 5 and 1QSa II

18-2231 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing

at the end of the meal32 In addition to these characteristics it is important to note that the

practice of a communal meal by the early church can be seen in Acts 246 Jude 12 and

1 Cor 1133

Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint The first

is that in the early church the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated daily The second is that the

27 Ibid

28 Ibid 69

29 1QS VI 10-11

30 1QS VI 4 This is an original translation because the Martinez translation did not bring out

the complete nuance

31 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69-70

32 Ibid 70

33 Frank Moore Cross The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev ed

(Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book House 1980) 235

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 25: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

21

Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated by the early church communally The third piece of

evidence is that the disciples in John 1335 sat by rank and talked only by their rank34

The fourth is that the Lordrsquos Supper was celebrated with a cultic character as seen in the

Didache chapters 9 and 10 The Didache chapter 9 states

And with respect to the thanksgiving meal [Literally eucharist] you shall give

thanks as follows 2 First with respect to the cup ldquoWe give you thanks our

Father for the holy vine of David your child which you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory foreverrdquo 3 And with respect to the

fragment of bread ldquoWe give you thanks our Father for the life and knowledge

that you made known to us through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever

4 As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered

to become one so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the

earth into your kingdom For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus

Christ foreverrdquo 5 But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless

they have been baptized in the name of the Lord For also the Lord has said about

this ldquoDo not give what is holy to the dogsrdquo35

The Didache chapter 10 continues and states

And when you have had enough to eat you should give thanks as follows 2 ldquoWe

give thanks holy Father for your holy name which you have made reside in our

hearts and for the knowledge faith and immortality that you made known to us

through Jesus your child To you be the glory forever 3 You O Master

Almighty created all things for the sake of your name and gave both food and

drink to humans for their refreshment that they might give you thanks And you

graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your

child 4 Above all we thank you because you are powerful To you be the glory

forever 5 Remember your church O Lord save it from all evil and perfect it in

your love And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom which you

prepared for it For yours is the power and the glory forever 6 May grace come

and this world pass away Hosanna to the God of David If any is holy let him

come if any one is not let him repent Maranatha Amenrdquo 7 But permit the

prophets to give thanks [Or hold the eucharist] as often as they wish36

34 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 69

35 Did 91-5

36 Did 101-7

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 26: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

22

In addition to Kuhnrsquos evidence Fritch also argues for a link because of the

messianic character of the communal meal based on the presence of the Messiah of Israel

in 1QSa He sees this as demonstrating the messianic character of the communal meal

which is also clearly present in the Last Supper 37

Kuhnrsquos first argument that since the Lord Supper was practiced in the early

church as a daily meal that the Last Supper was a daily meal in the early church does not

constitute proof that the Last Supper was based on the Qumran common meal

Kuhnrsquos second argument that the Lordrsquos Supper was practiced in a communal

manner in the early church is not an argument in favor of this position at all since the

Last Supper was held communally by Jesus and his disciples and the church was likely

following that example This is also the case with Crossrsquos argument concerning evidence

for a communal meal in the New Testament The key to the validation of these first two

arguments would be if any distinctive characteristic of the Qumran common meal could

be clearly identified with any action at the Last Supper

Kuhnrsquos third argument is the most significant since it is attempting to tie the

Last Supper directly to a characteristic of the Qumran community meal John 1324

relates an incident where Peter leans over to the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to have him ask which

one of them would betray Jesus The context of this passage makes it very likely that this

is an overreach on Kuhnrsquos part because it is more likely that Peter was simply stunned

along with the rest of the disciples as seen in v 22 Peter after the stunned silence

simply recognized that it was much easier for the lsquobeloved disciplersquo to ask Jesus the

37 Charles T Fritsch The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls (New York

Macmillan 1956) 123

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 27: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

23

question because he was sitting right next to Jesus and could simply lean over and ask

him privately about the matter38

Again the fourth argument is simply too tenuous a connection to be sustained

All of the meals that are discussed in this thesis have a solemn character for which a

blessing would be expected therefore it should be expected that the early church would

have blessings for their communal meal Finally the argument by Fritch that there is a

messianic expectation is true but irrelevant without corroborating evidence for Qumran

distinctive practices in the Last Supper

This view should be rejected for the following five reasons The first reason is

that Jesus presided over the blessing during the Last Supper This is a direct violation of

the requirement that a priest preside over the Qumran community meal The second

reason is that there is no evidence that the Last Supper was limited to people who were

initiated to the group The third reason is that in the context of the Last Supper the idea of

rank being important is condemned by Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (see John

135-17) The fourth reason is that overall it seems that all of the arguments read way too

much into common cultural practices The last reason is that there is no evidence that

Jesus and his disciples followed any distinctive practice of the Qumran community

After evaluating potential connections to the Qumran communal meal it is

necessary to evaluate any connections between the Jewish story of Joseph and Aseneth

38 D A Carson The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson (Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1991) 474

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 28: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

24

and the Last Supper Kilpatrick lays out four key passages that must be evaluated in

lsquoJoseph and Asenethrsquo39 The first passage found in 84-5 is as follows

And as Aseneth went up to kiss Joseph Joseph stretched out his right hand and

put it on her chest between her two breasts and her breasts were already standing

upright like handsome apples And Joseph said ldquoIt is not fitting for a man who

worships God who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread

of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality and anoint himself with the blessed

ointment of incorruptibility to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her

mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and

drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness and anoint herself with the

ointment of destruction40

The second passage found in 88-11 states

And when Aseneth heard the words of Joseph she was cut (to the heart) and was

distressed exceedingly and sighed and she kept gazing at Joseph with her eyes

open and her eyes were filled with tears And Joseph saw her and had mercy on

her exceedingly and was himself cut (to the heart) because Joseph was meek and

merciful and fearing God And he lifted up his right hand and put it upon her head

and said ldquoLord God of my father Israel the most High the Powerful One of

Jacob who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the

light and from the error to the truth and from death to the life you Lord bless

this virgin and renew her by your spirit and form her anew by your hidden hand

and make her alive again by your life and let her eat your bread of life and drink

your cup of blessing and number her among your people that you have chosen

before all (things) came into being and let her enter your rest which you have

prepared for your chosen ones and live in your eternal life for ever (and) ever41

The third passage is 154-6 which states ldquoCourage Aseneth chaste virgin For behold

you name was written in the book of the living in heaven in the beginning of the book as

the very first of all your name was written by my finger and it will not be erased forever

Behold from today you will be renewed and formed anew and made alive again and

39 G D Kilpatrick ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 5

40 Jos Asen 84-5

41 Jos Asen 88-11

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 29: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

25

you will eat blessed Courage Aseneth chaste virgin Behold I have given you today to

Joseph for a bride and he himself will be your bridegroom for ever (and) everrdquo42

The last passage is 1615-16a which states ldquoAnd the man stretched out his

right hand and broke a small portion off the comb and he himself ate and what was left

he put with his hand into Asenethrsquos mouth and said to her ldquoEatrdquo And she ate And the

man said to Aseneth ldquoBehold you have eaten bread of life and drunk a cup of

immortality and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibilityrdquordquo43

The first issue that needs to be dealt with concerning this document is its

dating Kilpatrick argues strongly for a pre-Christian date with the following five pieces

of evidence The first piece of evidence is the absence of any mention of baptism as a

means of initiation either to first-century Judaism or the church The second piece of

evidence is that the political conditions are congruent with a pre-Christian date In Joseph

and Aseneth there is a king ruling in Egypt Also in Joseph and Aseneth great civil

disorders are highlighted This fits very well with the final years of Ptolemaic rule in

Egypt The third piece of evidence is that there does not seem to be a trace of anything to

suggest a date after the fall of Jerusalem The fourth piece of evidence is that there seems

to be thematic and vocabulary links with the Wisdom of Solomon based on the presence

of the two key terms ἀθανασία (immortality) and μυστήριον (mystery) The last piece of

42 Jos Asen 154-6

43 Jos Asen 1615-16a

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 30: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

26

evidence is that in contrast to a later Jewish tradition that Aseneth is the daughter of

Dinah (and therefore was a Jew) this story clearly portrays her as a pagan44

Kilpatrick argues for the relationship between the Last Supper the meal in

Joseph and Aseneth and the Qumran community meal with the following arguments

I can now summarize the results of my investigation We have three examples of

a religious meal where after the saying of one or two blessings of God bread and

wine are partaken In all three instances they are community meals The meal in

JA [Joseph and Asenath] is partaken by Israel the people of God in contrast to

the outside world At Qumran the meal is partaken only by members of the

Qumran community in contrast with the rest of Israel and the heathen world In

the Eucharist only members of the Christian Church can partake in contrast to all

other Partaking in the meal is a test of membership for all instances45

Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to

an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae46 This group is described in Philo as

allowing women to participate in the common meal47

This view should be rejected for the following four reasons The first reason is

that it is highly unlikely that a book that totally ignores the practice of the law would

have originated in any Qumran like sect48 A second reason is that we know from a

citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community50 The

44 G D Kilpatrick The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983) 59-60

45 Ibid 65

46 Kuhn ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo 75

47 Philo Contempl Life 68

48 Barnabas Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo in Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday ed Barry P Thompson

(Hull England Hull University Press 1987) 184

49 Josephus JW 2123

50 Lindars ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo 184

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 31: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

27

third reason is that it is hard to see how a book that praises a mixed marriage could

originate from a group committed to celibacy51 The fourth reason is as Lindars states ldquoA

further point is that Joseph and Aseneth is in no way concerned with the contemplative

life which Philo regards as the most attractive feature of the Therapeutaerdquo52

Even more important than denying a link between the meal in Joseph and

Aseneth and the Qumran community meal is that based on an examination of the actual

text of Joseph and Aseneth the meal does not actually resemble the Last Supper The

elements of the Last Supper are bread and wine Bread and wine are mentioned in the

previously cited passages but the actual meal consisted of a honeycomb Looking at the

context of the previously cited passages it seems that clearly the phrases lsquobread of lifersquo

lsquocup of immortalityrsquo and lsquoointment of incorruptibilityrsquo simply describe Asenethrsquos

conversion experience This can also be seen in contrast with lsquobread of strangulationrsquo

lsquocup of insidiousnessrsquo and lsquoointment of destructionrsquo which seem to be describing

common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion53

Normal Meal

McKnight a modern proponent of this view points out three possible

indications that this meal was not a Passover meal The first indication is that we see in

Mark 141-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast The second

indication is in Mark 1521 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the

51 Ibid

52 Ibid

53 Ibid 185

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 32: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

28

fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesusrsquo cross The third indication is that

Paul does not represent the Last Supper as being a Passover meal but that he sees Jesus as

being the ultimate Passover sacrifice54 McKnight argues that Mark took a normal meal

and imbued it with Passover overtones He argues that it was Jesus by his symbolic

actions at the meal that opened the door for Mark to make this legitimate switch55

The first indication is by far the least significant because intention certainly

does not indicate success The Sanhedrin may very well have wanted to take care of Jesus

but the opportunity did not present itself until the first night of the feast The second

indication which is found in Mark 1521 and Luke 2326 is significant but the phrase

lsquowho was coming from the fieldrsquo (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ) does not necessarily prove that

he was coming from working in the fields It is only telling us where he was coming

from Cranfield in his commentary makes the following helpful comment on this phrase

when he states ldquoNot necessarily from work on the land He may have been coming from

somewhere just outside the city So this detail should not be regarded as evidence against

the Synoptic chronology (see on xiv 12) he may anyway have been a Gentilerdquo56 The

third indication that Paul is representing that Jesus was crucified when the Passover

lambs were being sacrificed is less clear than it would initially appear First Corinthians

57 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not

54 Scot McKnight Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and Atonement

Theory (Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005) 272

55 Ibid

56 C E B Cranfield Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule (Cambridge Cambridge University Press

1959) 454

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 33: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

29

intend the reference to be seen in a chronological manner at all57 This can be seen clearly

in the next few verses where Paul makes clear the reason he is talking about Jesus as the

Passover sacrifice The reason why he makes this allusion is to allow for a connection to

the removal of leaven from the house a few verses later This example is used as an

exhortation to the Corinthians to remove sin from their midst Paul intended it to serve as

an exhortation to remove the man who was sexually involved with his fatherrsquos wife58

The overall problem with this approach is that Mark would have to change

several key chronological markers This would have serious implications for the

historical reliability of the text In addition a positive case would need to be made for

why Mark made the change to the chronology

Passover Meal

One thing that is absolutely certain concerning this debate is that the Passover

symbolism is a central theme in both Judaism and Christianity59 The real question is

whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not

Segal points out five categories of characteristics of the Passover meal The

first category contains five characteristics The first characteristic is that four cups of

wine are drunk during the meal The second characteristic is that the participants recline

at the meal The third characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was the central feature

57 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1954

58 Anthony C Thiselton The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000) 405

59 Anthony J Saldarini Jesus and Passover (New York Paulist Press 1984) 2

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 34: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

30

of the meal The fourth characteristic is that Passover sacrifice was designated for a

specific group of people and only those people could eat the Passover sacrifice The last

characteristic is that the meal was normally held in family groups60 The first two

characteristics can be seen in the m Pesaḥim 101 which states ldquoA On the eve of

Passover from just before the afternoonrsquos daily whole offering a person should not eat

until it gets dark B And even the poorest Israelite should eat until he reclines at his table

C And they should provide him with no fewer than four cups of wine D and even if [the

funds] come from public charityrdquo61 The third fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen

in m Pesaḥim 713-84 which states

713 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which

were eating in one roommdashB these turn their faces to one side and eat C and

those turn their faces to the other side and eat D And the kettle is in the middle

[between them] E And when the waiter [who eats with one association but serves

them both] stands up to mix the wine [of the company with which he is not

eating] F he shuts his mouth and turns his face away until he gets back to his own

association G and then continues eating H And a bride turns her face aside while

she eats 81 A A woman when she is in the home of her husbandmdashB [if] her

husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf and her father

slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf C [she] should eat of that which is

slaughtered by her husband D [If] she went to observe the first festival [after

marriage] in her fatherrsquos house E [if] her father slaughtered [a Passover offering]

in her behalf and her husband slaughtered [a Passover offering] in her behalf

F let her eat in whichever place she wants G A [minor] orphan in behalf of whom

[several] guardians have slaughtered [a Passover offering] eats in the place which

he wants H A slave belonging to two partners should not eat [of a Passover

offering] belonging to either one of them I He who is half-slave and half-free

should not eat [of the Passover offering] of his master 82 A He who says to his

slave ldquoGo and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf ldquomdashB [if] he

slaughtered a kid let him eat it C [If] he slaughtered a lamb let him eat it D [If]

he slaughtered both a kid and a lamb let him eat from the former E [If the slave]

forgot what his master said to him what should he do F Let him slaughter both a

60 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259-60

61 m Pesaḥim 101

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 35: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

31

kid and a lamb and say ldquoIf my master told me to prepare a kid the kid is his and

the lamb is mine and if my master told me to prepare a lamb the lamb is his and

the kid is minerdquo G [If the slave did as specified but] his master forgot what he

had said to him both of them [the animals killed by the slave] go out to the place

of burning H But they are exempt from the requirement of preparing the second

Passover 83 A He who says to his children ldquoLo I shall slaughter the Passover

offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem firstrdquomdashB once

the first [child] poked his head and the greater part of his body into the city he

has effected acquisition of his share and has furthermore effected acquisition in

behalf of his brothers along with himself C Under all circumstances do [people]

register with [a Passover offering] so long as there is an oliversquos bulk of meat for

each and every one of them D They register and then withdraw their registration

from it until the moment that one will slaughter it E R Simeon says ldquoUntil one

will toss the blood on his behalfrdquo 84 A He who registered others in his share [of

the Passover offering] mdashB the [other] members of the association have the right

to give him his share [to eat elsewhere] and he eats what is his and they eat what

is theirs62

Two pieces of information are important from this passage From this passage

we see that wine was drunk during the meal and that the participants reclined while

eating The fact that the wine was drunk during the meal63 and that the participants

reclined during the meal64 argues for a festal context of some sort Jeremias argues that

the wine that was used was red wine because the wine was compared by Christ to his

blood65 The significance of the use of wine or even red wine is dubious since it is very

likely that red wine was used at any special meal whether it was festal or not66 In addition

62 m Pesaḥim 713-84

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 50-52

64 Ibid 48-49

65 Ibid 53

66 Eduard Schweizer The Lords Supper according to the New Testament trans James M

Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18 (Philadephia Fortress Press 1967) 31

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 36: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

32

to this the idea that the Passover meal was a family event but that Jesus restricted it to his

disciples is evidence against the possibility that the Last Supper was a Passover meal67

The second category contains two characteristics The first characteristic is

that the Passover sacrifice was designated for a specific group of people and it could only

to be eaten by them The second characteristic is that the Passover sacrifice was one of

the lsquoLesser Holy Thingsrsquo68 This can be seen in m Zebaḥim 58 which states

A The firstling and the tithe [of cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things

B The act of slaughtering them is in any place in the courtyard C And their blood

requires a single act of placing D provided that one places [the blood] at the base

E [The law] imposed a difference on their manner of eating [from that of the

Passover] (1) The firstling is eaten by priests (2) And tithe [of cattle] by any

person F And they are eaten throughout the city [cooked for food] in any [manner

of cooking] food for two days and one [intervening] night G The Passover is

eaten only at night H And it is eaten only up to midnight I And it is eaten only

by those that were assigned to it J And it is eaten only roasted69

In addition to the above characteristics pointed out by Segal there are two other critical

pieces of information in this passage The first is that the Passover meal had to be eaten at

night The second is that the Passover meal must be completed by midnight

In evaluating this category there are two considerations The first

consideration is that this criterion cannot be used to judge the nature of the meal because

the Passover sacrifice is not mentioned in the gospel accounts70 The second consideration

67 McKnight Jesus and His Death 269

68 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

69 m Zebaḥim 58

70 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 17

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 37: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

33

is that the meal was held at night71 and this provides strong evidence that the meal was a

Passover meal

The third category contains three characteristics The first characteristic is that

the unleavened bread was served at the Passover meal The second characteristic is that

bitter herbs were served at the Passover meal The last characteristic is that the Hallel was

recited at various points during the Passover meal72 This can be seen in two passages

from the Mishnah m Pesaḥim 93 and 103 which state

93 A What is the difference between the first Passover and the second B The

first Passover is subject to the prohibition about leaven It shall not be seen and It

shall not be found (Ex 1219 137) C As to the second unleavened bread and

leaven may be in the house right alongside one another D The first Passover

requires the recitation of the Hallel Psalms when it is eaten but the second

Passover does not require the recitation of Hallel Psalms when it is eaten E This

and that require a Hallel Psalm to be sung while they are being prepared F And

[both Passover offerings] are eaten roasted with unleavened bread and bitter

herbs G And [both Passover offerings] override [the prohibitions of the]

Sabbath73

103 A [When] they bring him [the food] he dips the lettuce [in vinegar] B before

he comes to the breaking of the bread C They brought him unleavened bread

lettuce and haroset and two dishesmdashD even though haroset is not a religious

obligation E R Eleazar b R Sadoq says ldquoIt is a religious obligationrdquo F And in

the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover

offering74

The problem with this characteristic is that there is no direct indication in the text of the

gospels for the presence of a Passover sacrifice or any direct reference to bitter herbs

71 I Howard Marshall Last Supper and Lords Supper (Carlisle England Paternoster Press

1980) 59

72 Segal The Hebrew Passover 259

73 m Pesaḥim 93

74 m Pesaḥim 103

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 38: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

34

This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not

exhaustive75 On the other hand there does seem to be evidence for a preliminary dinner

course that was served before Christ broke the bread in Mark 1420 and Matt 262376 In

addition to this hymns were sung at the end of the meal and while it is true they are not

specifically called the Hallel the singing is matches up nicely with the practice of singing

the final Hallel at the end of the Passover meal77

The fourth category contains only one characteristic The only characteristic

in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the

meal78

This is clearly seen in m Pesaḥim 105-6 which states

105 A Rabban Gamaliel did state ldquoWhoever has not referred to these three

matters connected to the Passover has not fulfilled his obligation and these are

they Passover unleavened bread and bitter herbs B ldquoPassovermdashbecause the

Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt C ldquoUnleavened

bread mdash because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt D ldquoBitter herbs mdash

because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egyptrdquo E In

every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has

gone forth from Egypt since it is said And you shall tell your son in that day

saying It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of

Egypt (Ex 138) Therefore we are duty-bound to thank praise glorify honor

exalt extol and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these

miracles He brought us forth from slavery to freedom anguish to joy mourning

to festival darkness to great light subjugation to redemption so we should say

before him Hallelujah 106 A To what point does one say [Hallel] B The House

of Shammai say ldquoTo A joyful mother of children (Ps 1139)rdquo C And the House

of Hillel say ldquoTo A flintstone into a springing well (Ps 1148)rdquo D And he

concludes with [a formula of] Redemption E R Tarfon says who redeemed us

and redeemed our forefathers from Egyptrsquo F ldquoAnd he did not say a concluding

benedictionrsquo rdquo G R Aqiba says ldquo lsquohellip So Lord our God and God of our fathers

75 Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament 17

76 Ibid 20-21

77 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 54-55

78 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 39: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

35

bring us in peace to other appointed times and festivals rejoicing in the rebuilding

of your city and joyful in your Temple worship where may we eat of the animal

sacrifices and Passover offeringsrsquo etc up to lsquoBlessed are you Lord who has

redeemed Israelrsquo rdquo79

Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he

interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine80 This is mitigated by two

considerations The first is that there is no evidence that offering words of interpretation

could not have been offered during another type of meal The second and more

significant is that the Passover interpretation of the elements is quite possibly from the

post-Christian era perhaps as a reaction to Christianity itself81

The fifth category again contains only one characteristic The only

characteristic in this passage is that the Passover sacrifice could not be taken outside of

Jerusalem82

This can be seen in m Pesaḥim 79 12 which states

79 A The Passover offering which went forth [from Jerusalem] or which was

made unclean is to be burned immediately [on the fourteenth] B [If] the owner

was made unclean or died C its appearance is allowed to spoil and it is to be

burned on the sixteenth of Nisan D R Yohanan b Beroqah says ldquoAlso This is to

be burned immediately E ldquofor it has no one to eat itrdquo 712 A A limb [of a

Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]mdashB one cuts it

away until he reaches the bone C pares off the flesh until he reaches the joint

D and then he cuts it away E And in the case of Holy Things he [simply] chops it

off with a chopper F For to [any of the Holy Things except for the Passover

offering] the law against breaking a bone does not apply G From the doorstep

and toward the inner part of the city is an area deemed inside the city H From the

doorstep and outward is an area deemed outside the city I The windows and the

79 m Pesaḥim 105-6

80 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 55-61

81 McKnight Jesus and His Death 268

82 Segal The Hebrew Passover 260

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 40: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

36

thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city83

This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be

eaten in Jerusalem84

This can be seen more explicitly in m Kelim 18 and m Makkot 33

which state

18 A (3) Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is more holy than they B For they eat there

lesser sanctities and second tithe C (4) The Temple mount is more holy than it D For

Zabim and Zabot menstruating women and those that have given birth do not enter

there E (5) The rampart is more holy than it F For gentiles and he who is made

unclean by a corpse do not enter there G (6) The court of women is more holy than it

H For a tebul-yom does not enter there but they are not liable on its account for a sin

offering I (7) The court of Israel is more holy than it J For one who [yet] lacks

atonement [offerings made in the completion of his purification rite] does not enter

there and they are liable on its account for a sin offering K (8) The court of the

priests is more holy than it L For Israelite(s) do not enter there except in the time of

their [cultic] requirements for laying on of hands for slaughtering and for waving85

33 A [Also subject to flogging are] (1) he who eats first fruits over which one has

not made the required declaration B (2) Most Holy Things outside the Temple veils

(3) Lesser Holy Things or second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem] C He who

breaks the bone of a Passover offering which is in a state of cleannessmdashlo this one is

flogged with forty stripes D But he who leaves over meat of a clean Passover

offering or who breaks the bone in the case of an unclean one is not flogged with

forty stripes86

The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last

Supper in all of the gospels87

Also from the m Kelim 18 it is clear the Passover meal

had to be eaten in a state of ritual purity This can be seen in the statement of Jesus in

83 m Pesaḥim 79 12

84 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

85 m Kelim 18

86 m Makkot 33

87 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 42-43

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 41: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

37

John 1310 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciplersquos feet88

Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the

minimum necessary for a Passover meal89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from

Josephus which states ldquoSo 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 companyrdquo90 This

corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples

a total of thirteen people91

Based on the above data the Last Supper should be seen as a Passover meal

for the four key reasons The criterion for selection was that all of these reasons are

different than normal cultural usage but that they are all distinctive characteristics of the

Passover meal The first reason is that in all the gospels the meal is portrayed as having

occurred at night as opposed to the normal evening meal in the late afternoon The second

reason is that the meal was held in Jerusalem rather than where Jesus was staying in

Bethany The third reason is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal rather than

the normal custom of sitting The last reason is that that the meal ended with the singing

of hymns

88 Ibid 49

89 Dalman Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels 110

90 Josephus JW 6423

91 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 46-47

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 42: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

38

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis it seems clear that there are really only two

options for the identification of the Last Supper It can be said with confidence that it was

either a normal daily meal that was imbued with overtones of the Passover or that it was

actually a Passover meal The conclusion of this study is that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the next chapter we will deal with the ramifications of this conclusion and

attempt to validate a historical defensible way that the disciples and Jesus could have

eaten a true Passover dinner with a Passover lamb that will not contradict the Johannine

chronology The next chapter will consist of two sections The first section will deal with

three potential options for the historical harmonization of the problem The second

section will deal with potential calendar differences that could explain the apparent

chronological discrepancy

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 43: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

39

CHAPTER 3

GOSPEL HARMONIZATION OPTIONS

Historical Harmonization Schemes

Synoptic Gospels Chronology is Correct

The idea of the first two sections of this chapter is that ultimately for many

scholars there is a real contradiction and that the chronologies in the Gospel of John and

the Synoptic Gospels are irreconcilable1 Some scholars a minority do not think that the

historicity of either account can be ascertained because the divergence came too early in

the tradition history to make a decision2 The idea that the Synoptic Gospels contain the

historically accurate chronology and John somehow modified the chronology is in fact

the more traditional of the two skeptical views3 The idea that these views are

harmonization schemes is actually a misnomer because these two views are actually

capitulations to the idea that harmonization is not possible This idea is expressed very

well by Jeremias when he states ldquoNone of these attempts at harmonization therefore is

convincing the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of

1 Robin Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 205

2 Joseph A Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman

vol 28A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1985) 1382

3 Routledge ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo 205

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 44: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

40

the Last Supper sharply contradicts one anotherrdquo4

The primary reason why this view is popular does not have as much to do

with any intrinsic historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as it has to do with

skepticism over the historicity of John This attitude can be seen clearly by a salient

comment by Leaney which states

Much of the speculation in the past has been due to the attempt to give weight

to the Fourth Gospel as an [sic] historical document This seems misguided All

four gospels are strongly influenced by theological beliefs and to suppose that the

most obviously theological of them all can correct the others on details of history

is extremely hazardous The value of the Fourth Gospel in the connexion is its

attaching eucharistic teaching to one of the miraculous feedings of a crowd an

event recorded also in the synoptics here is a hint that for the early Church many

meals held by Jesus with his followers contribute to the meaning of the Eucharist5

Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing

tradition in order to equate Christrsquos death with the death of the Passover sacrifice This

can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states ldquoWhile this Gospel antedates the Last

Supper by twenty-four hours so that Jesus becomes the true paschal lamb suffering death

at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs in the temple there are not lacking indications

that the evangelist depends on a tradition which resembles the Synoptics in understanding

the Last Supper as a Passover mealrdquo6

Even though this view would be a capitulation to a contradiction this view as

well as the next one will need to make a positive case for the intentional modification of

4 Joachim Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus trans Norman Perrin 3d ed

(Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966) 26

5 A R C Leaney ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 62

6 A J B Higgins The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology ed

H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6 (London SCM Press 1952) 22

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 45: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

41

an existing tradition7 The major problem is admitted indirectly by Jeremias who is a

proponent of this view when he argues that the Johannine account seems to be of a

mixed character (portraying a non-Passover chronology with a meal that seems to be a

Passover meal) and is therefore unreliable8 The problem with this is that if there was an

intentional modification of the tradition it seems very unlikely that the Jewish author of

John would be that careless with his portrayal of the events and not consistently modify

the tradition9

The Johannine Chronology is Correct

This is by far a less common position but there are significant reasons why

some scholars have adopted it The first reason is that unlike the synoptic chronology the

Johannine chronology is absolutely internally consistent in portraying the Last Supper as

occurring on the day before the Passover sacrifices occurred10 The first reason that this

view would see the chronology presented in the Synoptic Gospels as being inconsistent is

based on the arrest being done on a feast day11 The second significant reason is that the

priests wished to have the arrest and trial of Jesus take place before the feast began and

7 Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981) 444

8 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 82

9 Darrell L Bock Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1996) 1957

10 Bo Reicke The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

trans David E Green (Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968) 182

11 Ethelbert Stauffer Jesus and His Story trans Richard and Clara Winston (New York

Knopf 1960) 142-43

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 46: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

42

the Johannine chronology allows for this12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast

between Mark 142 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 1412-16 which clearly

portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he

states ldquoThe Johannine dating thus seems the more likely The strongest evidence for it is

John 18 28 and it is all the stronger because incidental The most telling objection to the

synoptic dating is the fact that it involves the desecration of a sabbatical feast dayrdquo14

Ultimately this evidence is compelling but it does not explain the rationale behind why

the Synoptic Gospels would have modified the chronology to portray Jesus as eating a

Passover meal with his disciples

An Exegetically Nuanced Reading of the Johannine Chronology

This approach handles the apparent contradiction in the chronologies in a

different manner Basically there are five significant passages in John that must be

reconciled in order to eliminate the contradiction with the chronology presented in the

Synoptic Gospels15

The first passage is John 131 which apparently sets the scene before the

Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing Carson sees

12 Reicke The New Testament Era 183

13 T A Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161

14 George Ogg ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo in Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 (London SPCK 1965) 89

15 D A Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo in The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1984) 530-32

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 47: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

43

support for this in the better text of John 132 which says ldquomeal was being servedrdquo16

The second passage is John 1327 which indicates that Jesus told Judas to do

what he had to do quickly and that the participants of the meal thought he was telling him

either to go out and buy more for the feast or to give alms to the poor This passage

argues for the identification of the meal with the Passover meal in two ways First if this

was truly twenty four hours before the beginning of Passover this would be completely

incomprehensible since there would have been plenty of time the next morning to

purchase any necessities The second reason is that there was a tradition of giving alms to

the poor on Passover night17

The third passage John 1828 is the most problematic of all of these

passages18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace

because they did not want to become ritually unclean19 Carson lays out two distinct

possibilities when he states

1 It is possible that the priests had intended to eat the Passover that night but

pressed by their temple duties and the thousands of sacrifices they had to perform

interrupted by Judasrsquos unexpected offer of instant betrayal and delayed by the

headlong pace of the ensuing judicial examinations they still had not yet eaten

their own Passover This view is unlikely if Exodus 128-10 forbidding delay of

the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 109 M Zebahim 58) was

strictly interpreted But these traditions may be late and Mekilta on Exodus says

that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 128-10 as being satisfied if the Passover

were eaten by dawn Even so these Jewish leaders were being caught out by at

least two or three hours

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Douglas J Moo The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield Almond

Press 1983) 322

19 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 48: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

44

2 More plausibly ldquoto eat the Passoverrdquo in John 1828 may refer not to the

Passover meal itself but to the continuing feast and in particular to the chagigah

the feast-offering offered on the morning of the first full paschal day (cf Num

2818-19) This could explain the Jewsrsquo concern ritual purification could be

regained by nightfall but not by the morning chagigah Of course the chagigah

could be eaten later in the week but it is unlikely that the leaders conscious of

their public status would be eager to delay it unless absolutely unavoidable

Deuteronomy 163 speaks of eating the Passover food of unleavened bread seven

days It may be then that the leaders wanted to avoid ritual uncleanness in order

to continue full participation in the entire feast Moreover this becomes the more

plausible if our treatment of John 1931 is correct Morrisrsquos objection (John pp

778-79) that one may concede that ldquothe Passoverrdquo can refer to Passover plus the

Feast of Unleavened Bread but certainly not to the Feast of Unleavened Bread

without the Passover meal may be setting up a straw man for the interpretation

being defended here does not claim that ldquothe Passoverrdquo here refers to the Feast of

Unleavened Bread apart from the Passover meal itself but to the entire Passover

festival Ritual uncleanness at this point in the festival would force temporary

withdrawal from the festivities from ldquoeating the Passoverrdquo20

The fourth passage John 1914 indicates that Jesus died on ldquothe Preparation

of the Passoverrdquo21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into

common usage as meaning Friday22 This can be seen in passage from Josephus which

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 after the ninth hour23

In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Josephus Ant 16163

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 49: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

45

a name for the entire festal period This can be seen in three passages from Josephus24

The first passage states ldquoSo Aretas united the forces of the Arabians and of the Jews

together and pressed on the siege vigorously As this happened at the time when the feast

of unleavened bread was celebrated which we call the Passover the principal men

among the Jews left the country and fled into Egyptrdquo25 The second passage states ldquoNow

upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had

appointed for the Jews at this time which feast is called the Passover and is a memorial

of their deliverance out of Egypt (when they offer sacrifices with great alacrity and when

they are required to slay more sacrifices in number than at any other festivalrdquo26 The last

passage states ldquoAnd indeed at the feast of unleavened bread which was now at hand

and is by the Jews called the passover and used to be celebrated with a great number of

sacrifices an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship

some of these stood in the temple bewailing the rabbis [that had been put to death] and

procured their sustenance by begging in order to support their seditionrdquo27

24 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 531-32

25 Josephus Ant 1421

26 Josephus Ant 17213

27 Josephus JW 210

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 50: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

46

In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his

passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage28 In addition this usage can

be seen in m Pesaḥim 9529

which states

A What is the difference between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of the

succeeding generations B As to the Passover of Egyptmdash(l) [the lambrsquos]

designation took place on the tenth of Nisan (2) It required sprinkling of the

blood of the lamb with a branch of hyssop on the lintel of the door and on the two

doorposts And (3) it was eaten in haste in a single night C But the Passover

observed by the succeeding generations applies [to leaven] for all seven days [and

not only for one night]30

The last passage John 1931 indicates that the next day would be a special

Sabbath31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath ldquonot

because it fell during the Passover Feast but because on the second paschal day in this

case a Sabbath (Saturday) the very important sheaf offering fellrdquo32 This can be seen in a

passage in Philo which states

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 production of living things33

28 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

29 Ibid

30 m Pesaḥim 95

31 Carson ldquoMatthewrdquo 532

32 Ibid

33 Philo Spec Laws 2162

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 51: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

47

This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the

explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilatersquos palace The first

explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of

Exod 128-10 which mandated that the Passover meal be eaten before the next morning

A valid question that must be answered is to how they would have had time to eat the

meal during that night alongside all the events that are recorded in the gospels The

second explanation of continued feasting while attractive is not the most intuitive

reading of the text Based on these considerations this view should not be seen as

adequate for explaining the apparent contradiction

Calendar Differences

Qumran Calendar Usage

The discovery of Dead Sea scrolls provided scholars with a great deal of new

information on a variety of subjects One of the distinctive characteristics of the Qumran

community was their rigid conformity to a specific calendar34 Jaubert argued that Jesus

and the disciples followed this calendar and that this calendar provides a reasonable

explanation for the discrepancy between the synoptic and Johannine chronologies35

Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36

34 L Johnston ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-09

35 Annie Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper trans Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island NY Alba

House 1965) 95-101

36 Jub 623-38

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 52: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

48

and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus38 What seems to have happened

was that the Jubilees solar calendar was very old and that the Qumran community

considered it as the only acceptable calendar39 This seems to be one of the primary points

of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in

Jerusalem40 Essentially this view argues that this ancient calendar was the traditional

calendar and that the lunar calendar was a later innovation of the aristocratic priestly

class41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be

celebrated on a Tuesday night42 Jaubert lays out the chronology of holy week as follows

First Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Tuesday night second Jesus was arrested

after the Passover meal on Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning and lastly Jesus

was crucified on Friday (or the eve of Passover according to the official lunar calendar)43

The major problem with this view is that the two day gap between the arrest of Jesus and

his crucifixion does not seem to be indicated by the biblical text The primary support for

this view comes from a third century document the lsquoSyriac Didascaliarsquo which uses this

form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices44 This view is also supported

37 1 En 74

38 John A OrsquoFlynn ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

59

39 1QS I 13-15

40 Eugen Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study trans Victor J

Drapela (New York Desclee Co 1965) 83

41 Ibid 90-91

42 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 97

43 Ibid

44 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 56-67

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 53: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

49

by the fourth century authors lsquoVictorinus of Pettaursquo and lsquoEpiphanius of Salamisrsquo45 In

addition to this the fifth century lsquoEthiopian Book of Adamrsquo also supports this view46

There are two primary arguments in support of this view The first argument is

that this chronology accounts for a possible minor discrepancy between the Synoptic and

Johannine chronology in the dating of the anointing The anointing appears to be two

days before Passover in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 262 Mark 141) John 121 on the

other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover47 The second argument in

favor of this view is that it better accounts for the amount of events between the arrest

and crucifixion of Jesus and specifically that the trials would have been illegal under

Jewish law if compressed into one night48

However there are five objections to this view The first major objection deals

with the first argument listed above The temporal marker in Matt 262 and Mark 141 is

specifically tied to the plotting of the Jewish leadership against Jesus not to the

anointing The fact that the two scenes are placed together does not necessitate a

connection The only temporal marker that is specific to the anointing places it during

Jesusrsquo stay in Bethany John 122 on the other hand places the anointing six days before

the Passover Based on these considerations this argument is less convincing than it

initially appeared

45 Ibid 67-68

46 Ibid 68

47 Jaubert The Date of the Last Supper 100

48 Ibid 104-05

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 54: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

50

The second objection concerns the second argument above Even though this

harmonization proposal seems to solve several problems with Jewish leaders conducting

illegal trials there are four considerations that mitigate this argument The first

consideration is that the evidence for the trial procedure comes from the Mishnah There

is some dispute as to what portions of the Mishnah reflect practices current during the

time of Christ and what portions reflect the time after the destruction of the temple49 The

second consideration is that it is possible that all the Jewish leaders did was hold a

hearing to collect evidence that they then passed on to Pilate therefore they did not have

to adhere to proper trial procedures50 A third consideration is that even assuming that

they did conduct trials the gospel accounts clearly demonstrate that the Jewish leadership

was willing to violate their laws by presenting false witnesses It should not be surprising

that they would be willing to bend or even break the law in the course of the trials

The third objection is that it is very unlikely that the Jewish officials would

have allowed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs three days ahead of schedule by a

schismatic group51

The fourth objection is that based on the vehemence that the adherents of the

solar calendar it seems very unlikely that there would not be other traces of this calendar

49 Baruch M Bokser ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-33

50 Raymond Edward Brown The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A (Garden City NY Doubleday 1970) 792-

93

51 John Nolland Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C (Dallas TX Word 1993) 1024

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 55: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

51

in the Synoptic Gospels Evidence for this calendar is completely absent from the rest of

the gospel accounts52

The last objection is that the primary evidence for an extended chronology is

very late with the earliest evidence being the third century Also the fact that those

documents are primarily concerned with using the extended chronology to justify current

fasting practices makes them suspect53 This view is possible but based on the lateness

and potential bias of the witnesses for this chronology this view should be rejected

Different Beginning of the Month

Another possible chronological harmonization was proposed by Billerbeck54

This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the

Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 239-14 as to

when the first-fruits offering should be presented at the temple A result of this difference

of interpretation was that the Boethuseans thought that the first-fruits offering had to be

offered on the day after the weekly Sabbath In contrast the Pharisees thought that the

Sabbath in question was actually the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that

the offering in question should be offered on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened

bread As a result of this disagreement the Boethuseans wanted the Passover to fall on

Sabbath so they influenced the authorities who regulated the calendar to set the beginning

of the month one day later in order to get the timing that they desired The Pharisees

52 Ibid

53 Ruckstuhl Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study 57-68

54 Barry D Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal 53

(1991) 31

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 56: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

52

objected to this and argued that the Passover should be one day earlier Therefore in

order to resolve this dispute the Pharisees were allowed to celebrate the Passover one day

earlier while the Boethuseans and the temple establishment followed the official

calendar55

There are three problems with this view The first problem with this view is

that it is almost completely based on conjecture56 The second problem is that in order for

the Passover to have been celebrated early the temple establishment would have had to

allow the sacrifice of the Passover victims on two different days57 The last problem is

that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christrsquos death58

To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day

This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms The

primary proponent of this view was Chwolson59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that

the phrase lsquobetween two eveningsrsquo in Lev 235 Exod 126 and Num 93 was interpreted

to mean at twilight This interpretation caused a problem since there would be no way for

the sacrifices to be completed when Passover fell on a Sabbath This view proposes that

when this happened the sacrifices were done on the day before In light of this there was a

disagreement about when to eat the Passover meal The Pharisees thought that the meal

55 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 165-66

56 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

57 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23-24

58 Smith ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo 31

59 Harold W Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Zondervan

Publishing House 1977) 82

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 57: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

53

should be eaten on the night that it was sacrificed while the Sadducees waited until the

next evening60

The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary

evidence in Philo61 which states that ldquoAnd after the feast of the new moon comes the

fourth festival that of the Passover which the Hebrews call pascha on which the whole

people offer sacrifice beginning at noonday and continuing till eveningrdquo62 Another

problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 1210 which

prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight63 Based on these considerations this view should

be rejected

The second form of this harmonization theory was presented by Pickl Pickl

argued that there were simply too many lambs to be sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan

14 Pickl uses two different lines of argumentation for this The first is that there was a

discrepancy of practice among the Jews seen in Josephus with some celebrating a seven

day festival64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival65 Pickl sees this as

indicating a diversity of practice where one group ate the Passover lamb a day earlier

than a different group His second argument is that there were simply too many lambs to

be sacrificed in on afternoon which he gets from Josephus who recounts a later Passover

60 Burkill ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo 164-65

61 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

62 Philo Spec Laws 2145

63 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

64 Josephus Ant 10248-49

65 Josephus Ant 2317

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 58: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

54

where 255600 Passover lambs were slaughtered66 Based on this he argues without any

evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus67

There are three significant problems with this theory The first problem is that

there is no evidence that even such a large number of lambs could not have been

sacrificed in an afternoon The second problem is that the evidence for an eight day

festival is based on the Diaspora practice and not on Palestinian practice The last

problem is the previously stated problem of the temple establishment allowing the

Passover sacrifices over two different days68 Based on the lack of evidence for the

problem of having too many sacrifices for one afternoon this view should be rejected

Different Reckoning of Days

This view is different from the rest of the chronological harmonization

schemes because it has as its primary basis biblical data This view posits that there were

two ways of marking the beginning of the day that were practiced in first century

Palestine69

The first more commonly attested method of reckoning the beginning of the

day is from sunset to sunset This view can be seen in several Old Testament passages

such as Exod 1218 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of

66 Josephus JW 6424

67 Josef Pickl The Messias trans Andrew Green (St Louis MO B Herder Book Company

1946) 121

68 Jeremias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus 23

69 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 85-86

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 59: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

55

Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 2170 In addition to this the Day of Atonement is also

commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 2332 This reckoning of days can also be

seen in Neh 1319 as being used for the weekly Sabbath Also the presence of the

evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 133 2866 1 Sam 2516

1 Kings 829 Esth 416 Mark 427 55 Luke 237) indicates this method of reckoning

days71

The less commonly known method of the reckoning of days is from sunrise to

sunrise This method of reckoning of days is indicated by the day being listed before the

night This method can be seen in the following passages Gen 114 16 18 822 3140

Num 1414 2 Sam 2110 1 Kings 859 Neh 16 49 Luke 187 Acts 924 Rev 4872

Several passages (Gen 1934 1 Sam 1911 Acts 43 207ndash11 2332) also refer to an

evening belonging to the first day of a specific time period rather than the night being the

beginning of a new day Deuteronomy 164 specifically applies this type of reckoning of

days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next

morning73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the

Passover meal75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the

70 Ibid 85

71 Ibid

72 Ibid 86

73 Ibid

74 Josephus Ant 3248

75 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

76 m Pesaḥim 109 m Zebaḥim 58

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 60: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

56

Passover meal to before midnight77 The last piece of evidence comes again from the

Mishnah78 which indicates that the Galileans did not work at all on the eve of Passover

but that the Judeans would stop work at noon on the eve of Passover This view proposes

that the Galileans would be slaughtering Passover lambs and the Judeans although they

would not be slaughtering until the next day would stop work out of respect for the

Galileans79

The most significant argument against this view is that there is no evidence

for the sacrificing of Passover lambs on two different days like several of the other

proposals80 There is however new evidence from the Mishnah which states

A The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of

Nisan] not for its own name [ldquounder some other namerdquo]mdashB R Joshua declares

valid C as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [of Nisan] D Ben Beterah

declares invalid E as if it were slaughtered at twilight [of the fourteenth] F Said

Simeon ben Azzai ldquoI have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s]

G ldquoon the day on which they seated R Eleazar b Azariah in session H ldquothat ldquoall

animal offerings which are eaten I ldquowhich were slaughtered not for their own

name J ldquoare fit K ldquobut they do not go to the ownerrsquos credit in fulfillment of an

obligation L ldquoexcept for the Passover and the sin offeringrdquo M And Ben Azzai

[thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering N But sages did not agree with

him81

This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different

names82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states ldquoWhat this passage

77 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 86

78 m Pesaḥim 45

79 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 88

80 Ibid

81 m Zebaḥim 13

82 Maurice Casey ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin 48

(1997) 245

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 61: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

57

shows is that some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the

afternoon of the 13th

and they were calling them something else perhaps a Peace

offering so that the priest would process them without questionrdquo83 This evidence could

be used to support Billerbeckrsquos hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike

Billerbeckrsquos dispute which would have happened only intermittently This could also be

used as support for Picklrsquos hypothesis but the other necessary evidence for his hypothesis

is not convincing (especially the fact that there is no evidence that the number of lambs

was greater than the ability of the priests to sacrifice in a single afternoon)

In this case the following chronology would have happened For the Galileans

and likely the Pharisees Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday of Holy Week The

Galileans would not do any work since they considered the feast to have begun at sunrise

They would have then presented a lamb in the temple during the afternoon of Nisan 14

(Nisan 13 under the JudeanSadducean reckoning of days) under a different name which

they would have eaten on the evening of Nisan 14 (according to both methods) Christ

would have been arrested during the night of Nisan 14 The death of Christ would have

occurred at 300pm on Friday Nisan 15 according to the sunrise to sunrise method This

would still be Nisan 14 according to the sunset to sunset method Therefore Jesus died at

the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain according to the sunset to sunset

method The Jewish leadership would have then eaten their Passover meal on Friday

night Nisan 15 according to both reckoning of days84 This argument has the advantage of

83 David Instone-Brewer ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository Times

112 (2000-01) 123

84 Hoehner Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 89

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 62: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

58

providing an explanation for the most significant problem in harmonizing the Synoptic

and Johannine chronologies the refusal of the Jewish leadership to enter Pilatersquos palace

in John 182885

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it seems clear that only two

real options are possible The first option is that a theological harmonization is possible

The second option is that the accounts can be explained by a different reckoning of days

The theological harmonization has much to commend itself but its explanation of why the

priests were concerned about becoming ritually unclean in John 1828 does not seem to

be likely

The explanation based on a different reckoning of days seems the most likely

because it would have been a yearly event This is significant because it explains why it

was not noted in either account because it would have been common knowledge

Based on the evidence presented in this chapter it is the conclusion of this

thesis that Jesus ate a Passover Meal with a Passover Lamb offered under a different

name with his disciples on the evening of Thursday of Holy Week and that Jesus was

crucified on Friday of Holy Week when the Passover Lambs were being sacrificed This

sequence of events is seen as being the result of different groups in first century Palestine

85 Ibid 87

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 63: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

59

using differing reckoning of days

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 64: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

60

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In examining this topic one certain thing that I have concluded is that this

problem is one of the most complicated issues that I have ever encountered in studying

the New Testament This study has shown clearly that there is an apparent contradiction

either between the chronologies presented in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John or by their presentation of the nature of the Last Supper meal

The second chapter of this study concluded that the Last Supper should be

taken as being a Passover meal because of the following four reasons The first is that the

meal is portrayed as having occurred at night The second is that the meal was held in

Jerusalem The third is that the disciples and Jesus reclined at the meal The last is that

that the meal ended with the singing of hymns

In the third chapter of this study it was concluded that the most likely

chronological harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels and Johannine chronologies was

that they were using different reckoning of days This conclusion as made for three

reasons The first reason is that the view is based on a clearly contemporary practice

rooted in the biblical text The second reason is that unlike other harmonization proposals

it is based on a practice as expressed in the Mishnah of Passover sacrifices being

presented on two different days The last reason is that this view is the best explanation

for why the Jewish leadership in John 1828 refused to enter the Praetorium because they

would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 65: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 66: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

62

1 Enoch In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalyptic Literature amp Testaments

ed James H Charlesworth trans E Isaac vol 1 13-89 New York Doubleday

1983

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated The Qumran Texts in English Translated by Florentino

Garciacutea Martiacutenez 2d English ed Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1996

Didache In Apostolic Fathers trans Bart D Ehrman Loeb Classical Library ed Jeffrey

Henderson 416-43 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press 2003

Joseph and Aesenath In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld

Testamentrdquo and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms

and Odes Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H

Charlesworth trans C Burchard vol 2 202-47 New York Doubleday 1985

Jubilees In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Expansions of The ldquoOld Testamentrdquo

and Legends Wisdom and Philosophical Literature Prayers Psalms and Odes

Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works ed James H Charlesworth trans O

S Wintermute vol 2 52-142 New York Doubleday 1985

The Mishnah A New Translation Translated by Jacob Neusner New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1988

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts ed Martin J Abegg Jr Bellingham WA Logos

Research Systems 2003

The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction Translated by Jacob

Neusner Jersey City NJ KTAV Publishing 1977-1986 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 2002

Aland Kurt Synopsis of the Four Gospels Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis

Quattuor Evangeliorum 12th ed Stuttgart German Bible Society 2001

Barrett C K The Gospel according to St John An Introduction with Commentary and

Notes on the Greek Text 2d ed Philadelphia Westminster Press 1978

Bauer Walter A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker 3d ed Chicago

University of Chicago Press 2000

Beasley-Murray George R John 2d ed Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M

Metzger David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 36 Nashville TN

Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 67: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

63

Bernard J H A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

John Edited by A H McNeile 2 vols International Critical Commentary

Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1928

Blomberg Craig Matthew New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 22 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 2001

Bock Darrell L Luke Volume 2 951ndash2453 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament ed Moiseacutes Silva vol 3B Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing

House 1996

Bokser Baruch M ldquoWas the Last Supper a Passover Sederrdquo Bible Review 3 (1987) 24-

33

Borchert Gerald L John 12ndash21 New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and

David S Dockery vol 25B Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers

2002

Brooks James A Mark New American Commentary ed E Ray Clendenen and David

S Dockery vol 23 Nashville TN Broadman amp Holman Publishers 1991

Brown Raymond Edward The Gospel according to John (XIII-XXI) Anchor Bible ed

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman vol 29A Garden City NY

Doubleday 1970

Bruce F F The Gospel amp Epistles of John Introduction Exposition and Notes Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1983

Buumlchsel Rostock ldquoκειmicroαιrdquo In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ed Gerhard

Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley vol 3 654-55 Grand Rapids William B

Eerdmans Publishing Company 1964

Burkill T A ldquoThe Last Supperrdquo Numen 3 (1956) 161-77

Carson D A The Gospel according to John Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company

1991

Carson D A ldquoMatthewrdquo In The Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary With the New

International Version of the Holy Bible ed F E Gaebelein vol 8 2-599 Grand

Rapids Zondervan Publishing House 1984

Casey Maurice ldquoThe Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 1412rdquo Tyndale Bulletin

48 (1997) 245-47

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 68: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

64

Cranfield C E B Gospel according to Saint Mark An Introduction and Commentary

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary ed C F D Moule Cambridge

Cambridge University Press 1959

Cross Frank Moore The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies Rev

ed Garden City NY Anchor Books 1958 Reprint Grand Rapids Baker Book

House 1980

Dalman Gustaf Jesus-Jeshua Studies in the Gospels Translated by Paul P Levertoff

London SPCK 1929 Reprint Eugene OR Wipf amp Stock Publishers 2004

Dibelius Martin Jesus Translated by Charles B Hedrick and Frederick C Grant

Philadelphia Westminster Press 1949

Dix Gregory The Shape of the Liturgy London Dacre Press 1945 Reprint London

Adam amp Charles Black 1978

Evans Craig A Luke New International Biblical Commentary ed W Ward Gasque

Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishers 1990

Evans Craig A Mark 827ndash1620 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 34B Nashville TN Thomas

Nelson Publishers 2001

Fitzmyer Joseph A The Gospel according to Luke XndashXXIV A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible ed William Foxwell Albright and

David Noel Freedman vol 28A Garden City NY Doubleday 1985

France R T The Gospel of Mark A Commentary on the Greek Text New International

Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William

B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2002

Fritsch Charles T The Qumran Community Its History and Scrolls New York

Macmillan 1956

Gavin F The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments London SPCK 1928

Reprint Whitefish MT Kessingers Publishing 1998

Gould Ezra P A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St

Mark International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1896

Gundry Robert H Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross 2 vols Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1993

Gundry Robert H Matthew A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1982

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 69: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

65

Higgins A J B The Lords Supper in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Theology

ed H H Rowley T W Manson Floyd V Filson G Ernest Wright vol 6

London SCM Press 1952

Hoehner Harold W Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Grand Rapids

Zondervan Publishing House 1977

Instone-Brewer David ldquoJesusrsquos Last Passover The Synoptics and Johnrdquo Expository

Times 112 (2000-01) 122-23

Jaubert Annie The Date of the Last Supper Translated by Isaac Rafferty Staten Island

NY Alba House 1965

Jeremias Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus Translated by Norman Perrin 3d ed

Philadelphia Fortress Press 1966

Johnston L ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Scripture 9 (1957) 108-15

Josephus The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged Translated by William

Whiston New Updated ed Edinburgh Nimmo 1867 Reprint Peabody MA

Hendrickson Publishing 1987

Keener Craig S The Gospel of John A Commentary 2 vols Peabody MA Hendrickson

Publishers 2003

Kilpatrick G D ldquoLiving Issues in Biblical Scholarship The Last Supperrdquo Expository

Times 64 (1952-53) 4-8

Kilpatrick G D The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 1983

Kuhn Karl Georg ldquoThe Lordrsquos Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumranrdquo In The

Scrolls and the New Testament ed and trans Krister Stendahl New York Harper

amp Brothers Publishers 1957

Leaney A R C ldquoWhat Was the Lordrsquos Supperrdquo Theology 70 (1967) 51-61

Lindars Barnabas The Gospel of John Based on the Revised Standard Version New

Century Bible Commentary ed Matthew Black amp Ronald E Clements Grand

Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981

Lindars Barnabas ldquolsquoJoseph and Asenathrsquo and the Eucharistrdquo In Scripture Meaning and

Method Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth

Birthday ed Barry P Thompson Hull England Hull University Press 1987

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 70: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

66

Marshall I Howard The Gospel of Luke New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1978

Marshall I Howard Last Supper and Lords Supper Carlisle England Paternoster

Press 1980

Maxfield T H W The Words of Institution A Study of the Hebrew Background of the

Holy Communion Service Cambridge W Heffer amp Sons 1933

McKnight Scot Jesus and His Death Historiography the Historical Jesus and

Atonement Theory Waco TX Baylor University Press 2005

Moo Douglas J The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives Sheffield Almond

Press 1983

Morris Leon The Gospel according to John Rev ed New International Commentary on

the New Testament ed Gordon D Fee Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 1995

Morris Leon The Gospel according to Matthew Pillar New Testament Commentary

Series ed D A Carson Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing

Company 1992

Neusner Jacob Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press

1984

Nolland John The Gospel of Matthew New International Greek Testament

Commentary ed I Howard Marshall Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company 2005

Nolland John Luke 1835ndash2453 Word Biblical Commentary ed Bruce M Metzger

David A Hubbard and Glenn W Barker vol 35C Dallas TX Word 1993

OrsquoFlynn John A ldquoThe Date of the Last Supperrdquo Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958)

OrsquoToole Robert F ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Anchor Bible Dictionary ed David Noel

Freedman vol 4 New York NY Doubleday 1992

Oesterley W O E The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy Oxford Clarendon

Press 1925 Reprint Gloucester MA P Smith 1965

Ogg George ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo In Historicity and Chronology in the

New Testament Theological Collections vol 6 75-96 London SPCK 1965

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000

Page 71: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS

67

Philo The Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged Translated by Charles Duke

Yonge New updated ed Peabody MA Hendrickson Publishing 1993

Pickl Josef The Messias Translated by Andrew Green St Louis MO B Herder Book

Company 1946

Reicke Bo The New Testament Era The World of the Bible from 500 BC To AD 100

Translated by David E Green Philadelphia Fortress Press 1968

Routledge Robin ldquoPassover and Last Supperrdquo Tyndale Bulletin 53 no 2 (2002) 203-

21

Ruckstuhl Eugen Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus A Critical Study Translated by

Victor J Drapela New York Desclee Co 1965

Saldarini Anthony J Jesus and Passover New York Paulist Press 1984

Schweizer Eduard The Lords Supper according to the New Testament Translated by

James M Davis Facet Books Biblical Series ed John Reumann vol 18

Philadephia Fortress Press 1967

Segal J B The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to AD 70 London Oxford

University Press 1963

Smith Barry D ldquoThe Chronology of the Last Supperrdquo Westminster Theological Journal

53 (1991) 29-45

Stauffer Ethelbert Jesus and His Story Translated by Richard and Clara Winston New

York Knopf 1960

Stein R H ldquoLast Supperrdquo In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed Joel B Green

Scot McKnight and I Howard Marshall 444-50 Downers Grove IL

InterVarsity Press 1992

Stein Robert H Luke New American Commentary ed David S Dockery vol 24

Nashville TN Broadman Press 1992

Tasker R V G The Gospel according to St John An Introduction and Commentary

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries ed R V G Tasker Grand Rapids

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 1988

Thiselton Anthony C The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary on the Greek

Text New International Greek Testament Commentary ed I Howard Marshall

Grand Rapids William B Eerdmans Publishing Company 2000