Tlio Qiick'tit solution of the ditliculty was to suppose a corrup- tioij (K fnr I', or ilV** ret'mi) of the te.xt. inort- often In .In thiin in .Mk ; ami ri^litlv. beeaUM- In Mli tlierc arc thrt-f several notes of time (Mk I.'"" '"•»') whlrh banfr tojretber. So lius. </</ Marinnm, with aproup of MSS scAotia {rid. Tisch. on Jn 19**), etc. This solution Is acceiiteil by Mr. Wright op. oil. p. 156 If.), anil it may conceivably hold goml.
Prof. Kainsay lays stress rather on the rough an<l approxiniato way in which the ancients used the reckoning; by hours. It must be remembered that an 'hour' with tliem was a twelfth part of dayligtit. and not a ll.xed s[iaco of Co measured minutes, as with us. If the two statements bad been Inverted— if Mk 15" hail described the end of the trial and ,In 19'* the raising of the cross — this elastioily tuight have amply covered both. As the two passages stanil, it hardly does so.
We may ask ourselves whether, supposing that the slaughter of the Paschal lambs began at 3 p.m. (the time of slaughter is given as 3-5 p.tn. by Jos. JIJ vi. 1.x. S), there would not be a rather strong temptation on typological grounds to fix the moment of the death of the Messiah at that hour. The other notes of time would naturally be conformed to this. But. on the other hand, St. tlohn's ' sixth hour' seems Inconveniently lato for the events which have to be compressed between it and the evening. The whole question must be left open. There is a choice of possibilities, but nothing more.
Can we get beyond a similar choice on the last and most important point (3), the discrepancy as to the day of the month of the Crucifixion and of the Last .Supper? Perhaps not.
It is the Last Sujjper which the Synoptists appear to fix by identifying it with the I'assovcr. They say expressly that on the morning of the ' lirst (lay of unleavened bread, w'hen they sacri- (ii-ed the Passover' (Mk 14'-|i), the disciples asked where the Passover was to be eaten. This would be on the morning of Nisan 14. In the evening, which from twilight onwards would belong to Nisau 10, would follow the La.st Supper, and on the next afternoon (still, on the Jewish reckoning, Nisan 15) the Crucifixion. St. John, on the other hand, by a number of clear indications (Jn 1:3' 18-'* 19'<- 31) implies that the Last Supper was eaten before the time of the regular Pa.ssover, and that the Lord suffered on the afternoon of Nisan 14, about the time of the slaying of the Paschal lambs.
We are thus left with a conflict of testimony ; and the question is, on which side the evidence is strongest. Now, if we are to believe a very com- petent Jewish archffiologist, Dr. Chwolson, the Synoptists begin with an error. 'From the Mosaic writings down to the Book of Jubilees (cap. 4',)), Philo, Josephus, the Palestinian Targum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzicl, the Jlishnah, the Talmud, the Habbinical writings of the Middle Ages, in- deed down to the present day, the Jews have always understood by the phrase ^^^7^2 Jo'^ !*w sn a^' "the first day of the feast of uideavencd bread," only the loth, and not the 14th' (^Das letzte Passa- mald C'hristi ti. der Tag seines Tades, p. 3f.) ; so that it would be a contradiction in terms to say with Mk 14'- II ' on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover.' It is, liowever, only right to add that Chwolson's assertion is denied bv another very good authority, Dr. Schtirer, ThL, 1803, col. 182. [Schurer does not directly meet the statement that where the feast of Unleavened Uread is represented as extend- ing over eight davs, the days intended are Nisan 15-22, not 14-21.»]
• It la worth noting that the Gospel of Peter agrees with the
Waiving this point, however, for the present, we observe (after Chwolson, but cf. Aiil harsh ip of the Fourth (iospel, 1872, p. 21)0 f. etc.) that tlie Synoptists make the Saidiedrin say beforehand that they will not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day,' and tlien actually arrest Him on that day ; that not only the guards, but one of the disciples (Mk 14*'|,) carries arms, which on the feast day was not allowed ; that the trial was also held on the feast day, which wouki be unlawful (on these points see Chwolson, op. cit. p. Off.); that the feast day would not be called simply ' l're)iara- tion'; tiiat the phrase 'coming from the field' (Mk 15'-':) means properly 'comhig from work'; that Joseph of Arimathtea is represented as buying a linen cloth (Mk Hi*"), and the women as prepar- ing spices and ointments (Lk 23'"), all of which would be contrary to law and custom.
It follows that the Synoptists are really incon- sistent with themselves, and bear unwilling wit- ness to the chronology of St. John. We may be still reluctant to think that the contradiction is final. The Synoptists. so far as they iihnlify the Last Supper witli the Passover, look as if thi-y were telling the truth. It is po.'isible that there may be some way of reconciling the two accounts, which we do not know enough of the circumstances to specify.