Nor is Mk.'s enumeration of the days between the decision of the Sanhedrin and the Last Supj^er quite explicit. If we regard 14'- Kai t-q TrpwTrj iipLepq. tQv d^vpLwv, 6t€ to wda-xa- ^dvov as referring to the 14th Nisan, then in all probability 14' synchronizes with the 12th Nisan, and 14'"'- with, say, the 13th. But this is not said in so many words. Neverthe- less, the writer possibly had in his mind some such synopsis as follows :
1st day, ll'-'i : Sunday, 10th Nisan.
2nd day, 1112-19 ; Mondav, 11th „
3rd day, II2O-149 : Tuesdav, 12th ,,
4th day, 14iof- : Wednesda\-, 13th „
5th dav, 1412-72 : Thursdav, 14th „
6th day, 151-4" : Friday, 15th
7th dav, 161a lia,ytvou.ivm ToD 11-a.^^a.Tov, Saturday, 16th Nisan.
8th day, ICib : Sunday, 17th Nisan.
It is also possible, however, that there is an in- terval between ch. 13 and 14', so that the Anointing would fall on the day after the Parousia speech. This would so far dislocate the above scheme by making the first day coincide with Saturday, 9tli Nisan (as probabh- in Jn. ), the second day with Sunday, the third with Monday, and the anointing with Tuesday. If this be so, we must allow for a period of nine days between the Entry and the Resurrection. In point of fact, we cannot solve the difficulty from Mk.'s data ; its mode of reckon- ing still leaves a residuum of doubt. In particular, we are at a loss regarding what Jesus does and where He is during the day previous to the Anoint- ing. But, notwithstanding these obscurities, it is an unmistakable fact that Mk. makes an attempt — though by no means an entirely effective one — to distinguish and enumerate the days between the Triumphal Entry and the Resurrection. Especially does the sequence of chronological references seem to postulate a definite calendar of the interval in question.
3. We turn now to Mt. and Lk. Mt. indicates a clear break only at the close of the Triumphal Entry day (21" Ka.1 KaraXnrihv avrovs ef^X^ev e|w Trji TToXecjs els BrjOaviap Kal -qiiKiadT] £K€l). The second day runs AA'ithout inten-uption from 21'® to the end of 25. In passing to the narrative of the Passion proper, Mt. exhibits the same ambiguity as we found in Mk. We cannot decide whether the words of Jesus in 26"- were spoken on the second day, or whether Ave must assume an interA-al be- tAA-een chs. 25 and 26.
Possibly, hoAvever, AA-e err in looking for chrono- logy at all in this section of Mt. We can under- stand the narratiA-e quite as AA'ell on the hypothesis that the Avriter Avas not in the least concerned to tabulate the days, but simply joined incident to incident Avithout regard to time. We find a similar uncertainty in Lk. : the Avriter's OAvn Avords in 20' if Mta Tuji/ rj/xepQv clearly imply that he had no dis- tinct idea of the number of daj's betAveen the
324
PASSION WEEK
PASSOVER
Triumphal Entry and the Passover (cf. also 21^' ^v 5e ras rj/j-^pas ev tuj iepip diddaKiov). This lack of precision admittedly extends also to the story of the actual Passion. Instead of the ' two days ' (Mk 14', Mt 26^), Lk. says only ijyyt-^ev d^ ij iop-ry) tujv d^i'i/Muv (22'), and in place of the precise reference of Mk 14'' Trj TrpiIjTrirj/j.€pq. TU>v d^v/jLdiv, ore to Trdo'xa ^dvov, Lk. simply has it that the ilay of unleavened hread ' came ' (22'^). This loose way of indicating time in Mt. and Lk. strikes us as strange in view of the generally accepted theory of their common depend- ence ui>un Mk., which designedly and explicitly gives an all but complete diary of the time. How are we to explain the fact that the two Exangelists who make use of the oldest Gospel are here less precise in details than their common source ?
4. The recognized explanation, viz., that the later writers did not trouble about such matters of detail, is most unsatisfactory, as all investigation of the growth and progress of the Evangelical record goes to show a constantly increasing interest in such minutiae as time and hour, place and number, name and personality ; witness, e.g., the NT Apoc- rypha. In fact, had we not other grounds for deeming Mk. the oldest of the Gospels, its osten- sible precision in such things would lead us to regard it as the latest.— The present writer is of opinion that we can best explain Mt.'s and Lie's omission of the time references of Passion Week, by the hypothesis that the recension of Mk. used by them did not itself contain these references ( Ur- Markus Hyjwthesis). Or, in other words, our Mk.'s enumeration of the days is the work of a later hand, a redactor, the Deutero-Mark. This view is so far confirmed by the presence of a certain artificiality in the arrangement. It would seem as if a definite scheme had been forcibly stamped upon the material. T\\q first trace of this appears in II". While Mt. and Lk. quite simply and naturally make the Cleansing of the Temple succeed the Triumphal Entry, upon the same day, Mk. has it that Jesus, having come to the city, spent the rest of the day in seeing the sights (as if He had not been often enough in Jerusalem during His thirty years), and that then, as it was late in the day (too late, i.e., to begin His great work), He went out to Bethany with His disciples. This apparently so exact piece of information really strikes us as utterly trivial and pedantic. What interest could Mark suppose his readers to have in such a petty detail ? or what concern had he himself, so indifferent, in general, to all chrono- logy, in such exactitude at that particular point ? Thei'e is, as it seems to us, but one explanation of the anomaly, viz., that the writer of 11" was anxious to intercalate one day more than the facts naturally allowed ; that is to say, he figured to himself a definite number of days, and must dis- trilmte them somehow in the material before him. A second trace is found in the circumstance that Mk. divides the incident of the Barren Fig-tree between two days (H'sf. 20f.)_ Here, too, Mt. gives the more natural account. For, granting the miracle of judgment upon the ill-staried tree, it is much more in harmony with popular views that the blight should instantly follow the curse (Mt 21'8^-)- III Mark's report, according to which the Avord of Jesus takes a day to work its efl'ect, we seem to discern a rationalizing tendency. The Evangelist, with all his belief in the miraculous, can more easily grasp the phenomenon by allowing for some sort of natural process.* Further, the partition of the Fig-tree incident enables the