This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
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
1 En. Ant. Contempl. Life Did. Jos. Asen. Jub. J.W. m. Spec. Laws t.
1 Enoch Jewish Antiquities or Antiquities of the Jews On the Contemplative Life Didache Joseph and Aseneth Jubilees Jewish War or Wars of the Jews Mishnah On the Special Laws or The Special Laws Tosefta
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 disciples,1 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 Corinthians.2 Robert F. O’Toole seems to crystallize the state of scholarship concerning the Last Supper when he states: “Numerous analyses
Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moisés Silva, vol. 3B (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 1951.
2 R. H. Stein, “Last Supper,” 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 proponents.”3 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 18:28 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 sacrificed.4 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 p.m. on a Thursday to 6 p.m. on Friday). According to John (see 13.1; 18.28; 19.14, 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 Temple.5 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.
Robert F. O’Toole, “Last Supper,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 4 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 234. 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. 4
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 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7.6 In Mark 14:12 the preparations for the Last Supper were completed on the afternoon of the day when the Passover lambs were sacrificed.7 Luke also points out this same chronological sequence in Luke 22:7.8 Matthew 26:17, in contrast, omits the reference to the preparations being made on the day when the sacrifices occurred.9 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 26:17 the day that the preparation for the Last Supper occurred was referred to as ‘the first day of Unleavened Bread.’10 In Luke 22:7 the day is referred to as ‘the day of Unleavened Bread.’11 Lastly, in Mark 14:12 the day in question is
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 & Holman Publishers, 1991), 224.
Robert H. Stein, Luke, New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 24 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 537-38. 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. 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. 10 9
4 referred to as ‘the first day of Unleavened Bread.’12 The second important piece of information contained in the synoptic accounts is found in Matt 26:17b-20; Mark 14:12b-17; Luke 22:8-14.13 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 meal.14 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 house.15 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 Jerusalem.16 It is also clear from these passages that Jesus intended to celebrate this final Passover meal with his disciples rather than with his human family.17 A third important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 26:20 and Mark 14:17 which both state that this particular meal was held at night.18 This data is in accordance
12 Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 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. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 373.
15 Craig A. Evans, Luke, New International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 316. 16
Brooks, Mark, 224.
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 22 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 387.
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1065.
5 with the Old Testament practice of the Passover celebration as seen in Exod 12:819 as well as the practice of the Passover during the intertestamental period.20 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 “reclining at a table” during the process of dining.21 This is the consistent usage in the New Testament as seen in the following passages: Mark 14:18; 16:14; Matt 9:10; 22:10, 11; 26:7, 20; Luke 22:27; John 6:11; 12:2; 13:23, 28.22 A fifth important piece of biblical data is found in Matt 26:23 and Mark 14:20. In these passages we see that morsels were dipped by each person into the dish.23 Sixthly, in the description (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20) 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 meal.24 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
Walter 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. Rostock Büchsel, “κειµαι,” 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. Gustaf Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Studies in the Gospels, trans. Paul P. Levertoff (London: SPCK, 1929; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 121. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: 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.
24 23 22
6 interpretation of his actions in breaking the bread and sharing the cup.25 The last significant piece of information concerning the actual meal, which is found in Matt 26:30 and Mark 14:26, is that at the end of the meal all the participants of the meal sang hymns.26 The final piece of evidence from the Synoptic Gospels, which is found in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39), is that instead of returning to Bethany where he was staying, Jesus and his disciples went to the Mount of Olives.27 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 likely.28 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 Jerusalem,29 there seems to be evidence that at Passover “the Mount of Olives was no doubt considered to be a part of
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. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 529. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 844. J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover: From the Earliest Times to A.D. 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. & T. Clark, 1896), 266. 28 27 26
7 ‘greater Jerusalem.’”30 Josephus31 and the Mishnah32 both provide evidence for an expansion of the borders of Jerusalem at Passover.33 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.
Brooks, Mark, 230. Josephus J.W. 2.10-13. m. Pesaḥim 5:10; 7:12-13; 10:1-3. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53, 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 13:1; 18:28; 19:14).34 The context of John 13:1 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 Gospels.35 John 18:28 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 meal.36 John 19:14 presents the information that Pilate brought Jesus out for judgment on the sixth hour of the ‘day of preparation for
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. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 899.
36 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 25B (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 238. 35
9 the Passover.’37 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: “It 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 commences.”38 Based on these statements, John’s 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 John’s 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 Gospels.39 A second piece of information that is found in the Gospel of John is that the meal was eaten in a reclining position.40 Again this concurs with the events described in the Synoptic Gospels. A third piece of information found in 13:30 is that timing of the meal is clearly being portrayed
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. 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. 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. & T. Clark, 1928), 471. 39 38
10 as happening at night which is also in complete agreement with the synoptic accounts.41 A fourth piece of information is found in John 13:10 where we can see that the meal was eaten in ritual purity.42 A fifth piece of information is found in John 18:1 where it is clear that the meal was eaten within the confines of Jerusalem.43 The last piece of information is found in John 13:29 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 poor.44 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
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 476. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 49.
F. F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 339.
Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John,
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.
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 Kiddush.1 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 ‘comrade,’ ‘companion,’ or ‘friend.’ 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 ‘sanctification of the day’ (Kedushath ha-yom). Elbogen says that ‘on 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).’ 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 ‘during the meal’, and that the Sabbath, which then began was greeted by a blessing over the cup (i.e. the Kiddush cup . . .).2 Gavin points out that the context of this meeting was that “Small groups of friends (haburoth) were accustomed to meet weekly for a common religious and social
W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925; reprint, Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1965), 167.
13 meal, as part of the regular order of their quasi-devotional, quasi-charitable organizations.”3 Maxfield points out that “Kiddush was a very old custom. The Talmud (Berakoth 33a) traces its origin back to the Great Synagogue.”4 Dibelius assumes this view without giving any additional supporting evidence.5 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 Oesterley’s own admission that “the day of Preparation was not
F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments (London: SPCK, 1928; reprint, Whitefish, MT: Kessinger's Publishing, 1998), 64-65. T. H. W. Maxfield, The Words of Institution: A Study of the Hebrew Background of the Holy Communion Service (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1933), 23. Martin Dibelius, Jesus, trans. Charles B. Hedrick and Frederick C. Grant (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 132.
6 5 4
Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, 175.
14 regarded as the official first day of the Feast”7 He goes on to say with no supporting evidence that “as 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 feast.”8 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 sunset.9 Actually his own supporting evidence is from the Tosefta10 which states “5:3 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 them–C: “they recite over it [i.e., the cup] the [benediction about the] sanctification of the day,” the word of R. Judah. D. R. Yose says, “They may continue to eat until it grows dark.””11 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 life.12 This can be seen clear in a passage from Josephus which states:
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 177. Ibid., 168-69. t. Berakhot 5:3. 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 us.13 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 “The ordinary Fellowship Meal included the use of the regular blessings over the bread and wine.”14 The problem with this description is pointed out by Dix, a supporter of this view, when he states: “They 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 family.”15 Dix goes into great detail concerning the specifics of this meal but
Josephus Ant. 14.213-16. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedants of the Christian Sacraments, 66.
15 Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, 1945; reprint, London: Adam & 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: “A [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 dinner.”16 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 ‘cleanness’. (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 forward.17 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.
m. Berakhot 6:6. 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: “Among 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 mandatory.”18 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 funerals.19 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.
Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
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 documents.20 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 them.21 The second relevant passage is 1QS VI, 1-6 which states: 1 … 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
Karl Georg Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. and trans. Krister Stendahl (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1957), 66-67.
Josephus J.W. 2.128-33.
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 night.22 The third relevant passage is 1QSa II, 17-22 which states: 17 … 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 firstfruit 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]hered.23 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 documents.25 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 purpose.26 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
1QS VI, 1-6. 1QSa II, 17-22. Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” 67-70. Ibid., 67-68. Ibid., 68.
20 documents where initiates are not permitted to take part in the meal.27 The fourth key concept shown in this text is that the people are only permitted to speak according their rank within the group.28 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: “No-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 own.”29 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 “and they sit each according to his place before him.”30 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, 18-22.31 The last concept is seen only in Josephus where the priest pronounces a blessing at the end of the meal.32 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 2:46, Jude 12 and 1 Cor 11.33 Kuhn cites four pieces of information in arguing for this viewpoint. The first is that in the early church the Lord’s Supper was celebrated daily. The second is that the
Ibid. Ibid., 69. 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, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” 69-70. 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 Lord’s Supper was celebrated by the early church communally. The third piece of evidence is that the disciples in John 13:35 sat by rank and talked only by their rank.34 The fourth is that the Lord’s 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: “We 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 forever.” 3. And with respect to the fragment of bread: “We 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 forever.” 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, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.”35 The Didache chapter 10 continues and states: And when you have had enough to eat, you should give thanks as follows: 2. “We 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! Amen.” 7. But permit the prophets to give thanks [Or: hold the eucharist] as often as they wish.36
Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” 69. Did. 9.1-5. Did. 10.1-7.
22 In addition to Kuhn’s 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 Kuhn’s 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. Kuhn’s second argument, that the Lord’s 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 Cross’s 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. Kuhn’s 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 13:24 relates an incident where Peter leans over to the ‘beloved disciple’ 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 Kuhn’s 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 ‘beloved disciple’ 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 matter.38 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 13:5-17). 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 ‘Joseph and Aseneth.’39 The first passage found in 8.4-5 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, “It 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 destruction.40 The second passage found in 8.8-11 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: “Lord 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) ever.41 The third passage is 15.4-6 which states: “Courage, 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
G. D Kilpatrick, “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: The Last Supper,” Expository Times 64 (1952-53): 5.
Jos. Asen. 8.4-5. Jos. Asen. 8.8-11.
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) ever.”42 The last passage is 16.15-16a which states: “And 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 Aseneth’s mouth, and said to her, “Eat” And she ate. And the man said to Aseneth, “Behold, you have eaten bread of life, and drunk a cup of immortality, and been anointed with ointment of incorruptibility””.43 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 θανασ α (immortality) and υστ ριον (mystery). The last piece of
Jos. Asen. 15.4-6. Jos. Asen. 16.15-16a.
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 pagan.44 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 instances.45 Kuhn goes even further than this by attempting to link Joseph and Aseneth to an Egyptian group know as the Therapeutae.46 This group is described in Philo as allowing women to participate in the common meal.47 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 sect.48 A second reason is that we know from a citation in Josephus49 that the use of oil was prohibited in the Qumran community.50 The
44 G. D. Kilpatrick, The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 59-60. 45
Ibid., 65. Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” 75. Philo Contempl. Life 68.
Barnabas Lindars, “‘Joseph and Asenath’ and the Eucharist,” 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.
Josephus J.W. 2.123. Lindars, “‘Joseph and Asenath’ and the Eucharist,” 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 celibacy.51 The fourth reason is, as Lindars states: “A 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 Therapeutae.”52 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 ‘bread of life,’ ‘cup of immortality,’ and ‘ointment of incorruptibility,’ simply describe Aseneth’s conversion experience. This can also be seen in contrast with ‘bread of strangulation,’ ‘cup of insidiousness,’ and ‘ointment of destruction’ which seem to be describing common religious practices of paganism that she will leave behind with her conversion.53
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 14:1-2 that the Sanhedrin wanted to get rid of Jesus before the feast. The second indication is in Mark 15:21 that Simon of Cyrene was coming in from working in the
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 185.
28 fields when he was pressed into service to carry Jesus’ 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 sacrifice.54 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 switch.55 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 15:21 and Luke 23:26, is significant but the phrase ‘who was coming from the field’ ( ρχ ενον π γρο ) 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: “Not 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 Gentile.”56 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 5:7 in particular seems to be functioning in a metaphorical sense and that Paul does not
Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 272.
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 all.57 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 father’s wife.58 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 Christianity.59 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
Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moisés Silva, vol. 3B (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 1954. 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.
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 groups.60 The first two characteristics can be seen in the m. Pesaḥim 10:1 which states: “A On the eve of Passover from just before the afternoon’s 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 charity.”61 The third, fourth and fifth characteristics can be seen in m. Pesaḥim 7:13-8:4 which states: 7:13 A Two associations [registered for two separate Passover offerings] which were eating in one room—B 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. 8:1 A A woman, when she is in the home of her husband—B [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 father’s 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. 8:2 A He who says to his slave, “Go and slaughter a Passover offering in my behalf “—B [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
Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 259-60. m. Pesaḥim 10:1.
31 kid and a lamb and say, “If 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 mine.” 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. 8:3 A He who says to his children, “Lo, I shall slaughter the Passover offering in behalf of the one of you who will get up to Jerusalem first”—B 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 olive’s 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, “Until one will toss the blood on his behalf.” 8:4 A He who registered others in his share [of the Passover offering] —B 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 theirs.62 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 blood.65 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 not.66 In addition
m. Pesaḥim 7:13-8:4. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 50-52. Ibid., 48-49. Ibid., 53.
66 Eduard Schweizer, The Lord's 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 meal.67 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 ‘Lesser Holy Things’.68 This can be seen in m. Zebaḥim 5:8 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 roasted.69 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 accounts.70 The second consideration
McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 269. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 259. m. Zebaḥim 5:8.
70 A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New 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 meal.72 This can be seen in two passages from the Mishnah, m. Pesaḥim 9:3 and 10:3 which state: 9:3 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. 12:19, 13:7). 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] Sabbath.73 10:3 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 dishes—D even though haroset is not a religious obligation. E R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq says, “It is a religious obligation.” F And in the time of the Temple they would bring before him the carcass of the Passover offering.74 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.
I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 259. m. Pesaḥim 9:3. m. Pesaḥim 10:3.
34 This is not definitive evidence because the accounts of the Last Supper are clearly not exhaustive.75 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 14:20 and Matt 26:23.76 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 meal.77 The fourth category contains only one characteristic. The only characteristic in this category is that special prayers to celebrate redemption were recited during the meal.78 This is clearly seen in m. Pesaḥim 10:5-6 which states: 10:5 A Rabban Gamaliel did state, “Whoever 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 “Passover—because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt. C “Unleavened bread — because our forefathers were redeemed in Egypt. D “Bitter herbs — because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt.” 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. 13:8). 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. 10:6 A To what point does one say [Hallel]? B The House of Shammai say, “To A joyful mother of children (Ps. 113:9).” C And the House of Hillel say, “To A flintstone into a springing well (Ps. 114:8).” D And he concludes with [a formula of] Redemption. E R. Tarfon says, who redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt.’ F “And he did not say a concluding benediction.’ ” G R. Aqiba says, “ ‘… So, Lord, our God, and God of our fathers,
Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament, 17. Ibid., 20-21. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 54-55. 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 offerings,’ etc., up to, ‘Blessed are you, Lord, who has redeemed Israel.’ ”79 Jeremias argues that the practice that is cited above was modified by Jesus when he interpreted his actions with the bread and the wine.80 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 itself.81 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 Jerusalem.82 This can be seen in m. Pesaḥim 7:9, 12 which states: 7:9 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, “Also: This is to be burned immediately, E “for it has no one to eat it.” 7:12 A A limb [of a Passover offering] part of which projected outside [of Jerusalem]—B 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
m. Pesaḥim 10:5-6. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 55-61. McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 268. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 260.
36 thick part of the wall are deemed an area inside the city.83 This is also important because of the implication in this passage that the meal had to be eaten in Jerusalem.84 This can be seen more explicitly in m. Kelim 1:8 and m. Makkot 3:3 which state: 1:8 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 waving.85 3:3 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 cleanness—lo, 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 stripes.86 The fact that the meal was eaten in Jerusalem matches up with the account of the Last Supper in all of the gospels.87 Also from the m. Kelim 1:8 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
m. Pesaḥim 7:9, 12. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 42-43. m. Kelim 1:8. m. Makkot 3:3. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 42-43.
37 John 13:10 concerning the necessity for Christ washing the disciple’s feet.88 Another important consideration is that ten people were considered the minimum necessary for a Passover meal.89 This can be seen clearly in a passage from Josephus which states: “So these high priests, upon the coming of their feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a company,”90 This corresponds well to the reported attendance of the Last Supper by Jesus and his disciples, a total of thirteen people.91 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.
Ibid., 49. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Studies in the Gospels, 110. Josephus J.W. 6.423. 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.
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 irreconcilable.1 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 decision.2 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 views.3 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 “None of these attempts at harmonization therefore is convincing; the situation still is quite simply that the synoptic and Johannine datings of
Robin Routledge, “Passover and Last Supper,” Tyndale Bulletin 53, no. 2 (2002): 205.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV: 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.
Routledge, “Passover and Last Supper,” 205.
40 the Last Supper sharply contradicts one another”4 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 Eucharist.5 Generally the main thrust of this view is that John modified an existing tradition in order to equate Christ’s death with the death of the Passover sacrifice. This can be seen clearly in Higgins when he states: “While 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 meal.”6 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
Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 26.
A. R. C. Leaney, “What Was the Lord’s Supper?” Theology 70 (1967): 62.
6 A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New 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 tradition.7 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 unreliable.8 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 tradition.9
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 occurred.10 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 day.11 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 & Ronald E. Clements (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 444. 8
Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 82.
Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moisés Silva, vol. 3B (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 1957. Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. To A.D. 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. 10
42 the Johannine chronology allows for this.12 This can be seen clearly in the contrast between Mark 14:2 which expresses the priestly desire and Mark 14:12-16 which clearly portrays the Last Supper as a Passover meal.13 The last reason is given by Ogg when he states: “The 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 day.”14 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 Gospels.15 The first passage is John 13:1 which apparently sets the scene before the Passover is misleading since it may only be referring to the foot washing. Carson sees
Reicke, The New Testament Era, 183. T. A. Burkill, “The Last Supper,” Numen 3 (1956): 161.
George Ogg, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, Theological Collections, vol. 6 (London: S.P.C.K., 1965), 89. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s 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 13:2 which says “meal was being served.”16 The second passage is John 13:27 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 night.17 The third passage, John 18:28, is the most problematic of all of these passages.18 This passage indicates that the Jewish priests did not want to enter the palace because they did not want to become ritually unclean.19 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 Judas’s 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 12:8-10, forbidding delay of the Passover dinner beyond midnight (M Peshahim 10:9; M Zebahim 5:8), was strictly interpreted. But these traditions may be late; and Mekilta on Exodus says that some rabbis interpreted Exodus 12:8-10 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.
Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 322.
Carson, “Matthew,” 531.
44 2. More plausibly, “to eat the Passover” in John 18:28 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 28:18-19). This could explain the Jews’ 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 16:3 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 19:31 is correct. Morris’s objection (John, pp. 778-79) that one may concede that “the Passover” 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 “the Passover” 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 “eating the Passover.”20 The fourth passage, John 19:14, indicates that Jesus died on “the Preparation of the Passover.”21 There is strong evidence that the word παρασκευή had come into common usage as meaning Friday.22 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 hour;23 In addition to this there is quite a bit of evidence that Passover was applied as
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Josephus Ant. 16.163.
45 a name for the entire festal period. This can be seen in three passages from Josephus.24 The first passage states: “So 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 Egypt.”25 The second passage states: “Now, 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 festival;”26 The last passage states: “And, 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 sedition.”27
Carson, “Matthew,” 531-32. Josephus Ant. 14.21. Josephus Ant. 17.213 Josephus J.W. 2.10.
46 In fact the only place where Josephus tends to separate the two is when his passage is directly dependent on an Old Testament passage.28 In addition, this usage can be seen in m. Pesaḥim 9:529 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 Egypt—(l) [the lamb’s] 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 19:31, indicates that the next day would be a special Sabbath.31 The most likely explanation for this is that it was a special Sabbath “not 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 fell”32 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 things.33
Carson, “Matthew,” 532. Ibid. m. Pesaḥim 9:5. Carson, “Matthew,” 532. Ibid. Philo Spec. Laws 2.162.
47 This evidence is indeed compelling but is not convincing concerning the explanation of why the Jewish leaders would not enter into Pilate’s palace. The first explanation for this presented by Carson would in fact violate Jewish law because of Exod 12:8-10 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 calendar.34 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 chronologies.35 Evidence for the antiquity of this 364 day solar calendar is found the books of Jubiliees36
L. Johnston, “The Date of the Last Supper,” Scripture 9 (1957): 108-09.
Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, trans. Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965), 95-101.
48 and 1 Enoch37 both of which predate the time of Jesus.38 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 calendar.39 This seems to be one of the primary points of contention between the Qumran community and the priestly establishment in Jerusalem.40 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 class.41 Based on the nature of this calendar the Passover meal would always be celebrated on a Tuesday night.42 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 ‘Syriac Didascalia’ which uses this form of the chronology to justify current fasting practices.44 This view is also supported
1 En. 74. John A. O’Flynn, “The Date of the Last Supper,” Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958): 1QS I, 13-15.
Eugen Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus: A Critical Study, trans. Victor J. Drapela (New York: Desclee Co., 1965), 83.
Ibid., 90-91. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, 97. Ibid. Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus: A Critical Study, 56-67.
49 by the fourth century authors ‘Victorinus of Pettau’ and ‘Epiphanius of Salamis.’45 In addition to this, the fifth century ‘Ethiopian Book of Adam’ also supports this view.46 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. 26:2; Mark 14:1). John 12:1 on the other hand places the anointing six days before the Passover.47 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 night.48 However there are five objections to this view. The first major objection deals with the first argument listed above. The temporal marker in Matt 26:2 and Mark 14:1 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 Jesus’ stay in Bethany. John 12:2 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.
Ibid., 67-68. Ibid., 68. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, 100. 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 temple.49 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 procedures.50 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 group.51 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
Baruch M. Bokser, “Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?” Bible Review 3 (1987): 24-33.
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), 79293.
51 John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 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 accounts.52 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 suspect.53 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 Billerbeck.54 This view posits a disagreement between an influential Sadducean family (the Boethuseans) and the Pharisees concerning the proper interpretation of Lev 23:9-14 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
Ibid. Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus: A Critical Study, 57-68. Barry D. Smith, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” Westminster Theological Journal 53
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 calendar.55 There are three problems with this view. The first problem with this view is that it is almost completely based on conjecture.56 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 days.57 The last problem is that this view argues without evidence that this happened the year of Christ’s death.58
To Many Sacrificial Lambs for One Day This particular harmonization type presents itself in two distinct forms. The primary proponent of this view was Chwolson.59 The main idea of this hypothesis is that the phrase ‘between two evenings’ in Lev 23:5; Exod 12:6 and Num 9:3 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
Burkill, “The Last Supper,” 165-66. Smith, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” 31. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 23-24. Smith, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” 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 evening.60 The major problem with this argument is that there seems to be contemporary evidence in Philo61 which states that: “And 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 evening.”62 Another problem with this is that it directly contradicts the injunction in Exod 12:10 which prohibits saving the sacrifice overnight.63 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 festival,64 and with some Jews celebrating an eight day festival.65 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
Burkill, “The Last Supper,” 164-65. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 23. Philo Spec. Laws 2.145. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 23. Josephus Ant. 10.248-49. Josephus Ant. 2.317.
54 where 255,600 Passover lambs were slaughtered.66 Based on this he argues without any evidence that the Galileans practiced an eight day festival as seen in Josephus.67 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 days.68 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 Palestine.69 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 12:18 which clearly placed the Feast of Unleavened Bread from evening of
Josephus J.W. 6.424. Josef Pickl, The Messias, trans. Andrew Green (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Company, Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 23. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 85-86.
55 Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 21.70 In addition to this, the Day of Atonement is also commanded to be observed in this way in Lev 23:32. This reckoning of days can also be seen in Neh 13:19 as being used for the weekly Sabbath. Also, the presence of the evening before the morning in the following references (Deut 1:33; 28:66; 1 Sam 25:16; 1 Kings 8:29; Esth 4:16; Mark 4:27; 5:5; Luke 2:37) indicates this method of reckoning days.71 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 1:14, 16, 18; 8:22; 31:40; Num 14:14; 2 Sam 21:10; 1 Kings 8:59; Neh 1:6; 4:9; Luke 18:7; Acts 9:24; Rev 4:8.72 Several passages (Gen 19:34; 1 Sam 19:11; Acts 4:3; 20:7–11; 23:32) 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 16:4 specifically applies this type of reckoning of days to the command not to save any meat from the Passover meal until the next morning.73 Josephus74 also portrays this understanding of the restrictions on eating the Passover meal.75 The Mishnah76 in two passages further restricts the eating of the
Ibid., 85. Ibid. Ibid., 86. Ibid. Josephus Ant. 3.248. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 86. m. Pesaḥim 10:9, m. Zebaḥim 5:8.
56 Passover meal to before midnight.77 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 Galileans.79 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 proposals.80 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 [“under some other name”]—B 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, “I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s], G “on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. Azariah in session, H “that: “all animal offerings which are eaten, I “which were slaughtered not for their own name, J “are fit, K “but they do not go to the owner’s credit in fulfillment of an obligation, L “except for the Passover and the sin offering.” M And Ben Azzai [thereby] added [to L] only the burnt offering. N But sages did not agree with him.81 This passage seems to indicate that people presented Passover sacrifices under different names.82 Instone-Brewer lays out the issue very well when he states: “What this passage
Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 86. m. Pesaḥim 4:5. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 88. Ibid. m. Zebaḥim 1:3. Maurice Casey, “The Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 14:12,” Tyndale Bulletin 48
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 question.”83 This evidence could be used to support Billerbeck’s hypothesis but this was a consistent practice unlike Billerbeck’s dispute which would have happened only intermittently. This could also be used as support for Pickl’s 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 Judean/Sadducean 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 3:00pm 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 days.84 This argument has the advantage of
David Instone-Brewer, “Jesus’s Last Passover: The Synoptics and John,” Expository Times 112 (2000-01): 123.
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 Pilate’s palace in John 18:28.85
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 18:28 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
59 using differing reckoning of days.
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 18:28 refused to enter the Praetorium because they would have become ritually unclean and could not eat the Passover meal. 60
62 1 Enoch. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & 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 García Martínez. 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 “Old Testament” 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 “Old Testament” 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. & T. Clark, 1928. Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 22. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001. Bock, Darrell L. Luke Volume 2: 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moisés Silva, vol. 3B. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996. Bokser, Baruch M. “Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?” Bible Review 3 (1987): 2433. Borchert, Gerald L. John 12–21. New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 25B. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002. Brooks, James A. Mark. New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 23. Nashville, TN: Broadman & 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 & Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983. Büchsel, Rostock. “κειµαι.” 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. “The Last Supper.” 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. “Matthew.” In The Expositor’s 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. “The Date of the Passover Sacrifices and Mark 14:12.” 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 & 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 & Charles Black, 1978. Evans, Craig A. Luke. New International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. 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 X–XXIV: 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: Kessinger's Publishing, 1998. Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & 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.
Higgins, A. J. B. The Lord's Supper in the New 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. “Jesus’s Last Passover: The Synoptics and John.” 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. “The Date of the Last Supper.” 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. “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: The Last Supper.” Expository Times 64 (1952-53): 4-8. Kilpatrick, G. D. The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Kuhn, Karl Georg. “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran.” In The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. and trans. Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1957. Leaney, A. R. C. “What Was the Lord’s Supper?” Theology 70 (1967): 51-61. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John: Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black & Ronald E. Clements. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981. Lindars, Barnabas. “‘Joseph and Asenath’ and the Eucharist.” 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 Lord's 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 & 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 18:35–24:53. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 35C. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993. O’Flynn, John A. “The Date of the Last Supper.” Irish Theological Quarterly 25 (1958). O’Toole, Robert F. “Last Supper.” 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. “The Chronology of the Last Supper.” In Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament. Theological Collections, vol. 6, 75-96. London: S.P.C.K., 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 B.C. To A.D. 100. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. Routledge, Robin. “Passover and Last Supper.” Tyndale Bulletin 53, no. 2 (2002): 20321. 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 Lord's 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 A.D. 70. London: Oxford University Press, 1963. Smith, Barry D. “The Chronology of the Last Supper.” 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. “Last Supper.” 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.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.