AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAST SUPPER IN THE LIGHT OF JEWISH CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS
-
Upload
joel-thomas -
Category
Documents
-
view
396 -
download
3
Transcript of 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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