r«of:
141 un
It would seem that some technical error was committed by the Synoptists, which may have been due to (1) St. Peter's inexact knowledge of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and probable identification of it with the removal of leaven before noon on Nisan 14 (Ex 12"') ; (2) the custom of the Galilipans, who, tinlike the people of Juda>a, who worked until the noon preceding, abstained from work tlie whole morning preceding the Pa.-is- over, which was reckoned from evening to evening, and consequently would make their preparations after sunset on Nisan 13 (Students' Com. on Mt 26") ; (3) some verbal confusion between theSyriac words for 'before' (kedam, Mt S^) and 'first' {kadmdyd, Mt 26") o>ving to Peter's broad Galila^an accent, which may have caused St. Mark's mistake ; (4) a comparative use of Gr. TrpJJTos (cf. Jn 1" irpuT&i tiov, ' before me ' ; 15'* f^f TrpCirov ifi.C>v, ' before you'), in which case Mt 26" would mean 'on the day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread ' ; (5) a difi'erence in the mode of reckoning the days adopted by St. John, who, according to AVestcott (Jn 19"), used the AVestein method of counting from midnight to noon, and by St. Mark, wlio adhered to the legal reckoning from evening to evening (Mk 15''-) ; (6) a natural confusion of the preparation of the Passover (Jn 19") on Nisan 13 with the weekly Paraskeue on Nisan 14 (Mk 15"), or of the daj- wlien leaven was removed from the houses (Ex 12" [LXX dirb t^s ijpjpas t^s irpiirris]) with the Festival of MazzOth, wliich commenced after the Passover day. The argument that the ex- pression ' not on the feast ' (ii.t\ iv 7-3 eoprj, Mt 26'') cannot refer to Passover has to reckon with Ex 12", where the Passover is called ' (• i t (■ - r. l.XX).
Support for Nisan H as (A -in in
XT and tradition (Chri.itian r, ' 1 ) 1 Co
5' TO Trdcrxa Tjfiwv ^Ti'drj Xpicrrd^, i-l' ::!ili'_-~ < 'liii~l with the Paschal lamb slain between 'the two even- ings'; and 1 Co I52" identifies the Kisen Christ witli the First-fruit.s of the 2nd day of the Feast of MazzOth, iirapxv tw;' KCKoifi.ri,u(yuy. (2) The Quarto-
DATES
BATES
decimans, aniony whom m as I'olycarp, held a fast on Nisan 14 as tlie daj- of Crucilixion (letter of Irenoeus to Victor). (3) Jewish tradition fixes the Crucifixion on tlie 'crcbh Pcsa(i or Passover eve, and the Greek Cluirch always used leavened bread in the Eucharist. (4) Apollinaris of Hierapolis (c. A.D. 180) pointed out that tlie 14th is connected with the Crucifixion. (5) Clement of Alexandria said that Christ did not eat the Passover, but suffered on the 14th. (6) Hippolytus of Portus declared that Christ ate a supper before the Pass- over, ' for He was the Paschal lamb who had been promised and was sanctified on the appointed day.' (7) TertuUian [adv. Jud. 8— a doubtful work) sug- gests Nisan 14. (8) Irenceus (Hwr. IV. x. 1), dis- cussing Moses' prediction of Jesus, says, 'Tlie day of whose Passion he did not ignore, but foretold it in a figure, calling it Pascha.' 'This is not very decisive, but suggests a memory of 1 Co 5'. This view of Nisan 14 may be said to be the best sup- ported in the first two centuries.
Tradition in support of Nisan 15. — Origen, in his comment on Mt 26", follows the Synoptic tra- dition : ' Jesus celebravit more Judaico pascha corporaliter.' Chrysostom declares (Horn, in Mt. 82) that the new feast appointed by Jesus super- seded the Passover. Ambrose, Proterius and others follow on the same side. Tliis view seems more recently popular than the other. But the contro- versy of Apollinaris in irepl rod wa.axa. X670S shows that there were some in the 2nd cent, who con- nected Nisan 14 with the Supper, and therefore Nisan 15 (according to Roman reckoning) with the Crucifixion.
The cumulative evidence of St. John, St. Paul, and the early Fathers, joined with the incredibility of Jesus having been arrested, tried, and executed on the great Sabbath of the Jewisli Year, and the statement of the Synoptists that that day was the Paraskeiie, seem to turn the scale in favour of Nisan 14 as the day of the Crucifixion. See also Last Supper. Nisan 14, a.d. 29, is the date to be now tested by otlier evidence.
Clement of Alexandria (Siroin. i. 147) notes the various views of the Basilidians. ' With regard to the Passion, some, after precise calculations, say it took place in the 16th year of Tiberius on Pliame- noth 25 (March 21); others on Pharmuthi 25 (April 20); others, again, on Pharmuthi 29(April24). March 18 and March 25, however, are tlie best supported. Epiphanius (Hear. i. 1) had seen copies oi the Acts of Pilate which gave March 18 as the date, but the Quartodecimans kept Marcli 25 on tlie strength of these Acts; tliis is evidence of some hesitation between these dates. Hippolytus (Com. on Dan.) gives March 25. With regard to this date, also given in the Paschal Cycle, Dr. Salmon says (Hermathcna, No. xviii. p. 175) : 'We can therefore regard the date Marcli 25 as insepar- ably connected with tlie sixteen years' cycle of Hippolytus.' As the Easter full moon was on March 25 in A.D. 221, and, working on the prin- ciple that after 16 years full moons return to the same day, Hippolytus trusted his cycle that it must have been on the same day in A.D. 29. But, as Dr. Salmon shows, in that year the full moon really fell on March 18, a week jn-evious. An interesting conliriiiation of the date March 18 is given by the Jewish calendar of Paschal moons, from which it would appear that Friday, which is generally accepted as the day of the Crucifixion, could not have fallen on Nisan 14 or 15 in the years A.D. 28, 31, 32, so that we are left to choose lietween 29, 30, 33, and of these A.D. 29 answers all tlie required conditions best, as the 14th day of the moon would fall in that year on Friday, March 18 (so C. H. Turner, ' Chronology ' in Has- tings' DB).