PASSOVER
1U
PASSOVER
But any explanation founded on the supposition of two meals appears to be rendered uiTtenable by the con- text. The fact that all four evangelists introduce in the same connection the foretelling of the treachery of Judas with the dipping of the sop, and of the denials of Peter and the going out to the Mount of Olives, can hardly leave a doubt that they are speaking of the same meal. Besides this, the explanation does not touch the greatest difficulties, which are those connected with " the day of preparation."
Demburg (in JuynboU, Reorder, etc., Orientalia, Am- sterdam, IS-IO, i, p. 175 sq.) has endeavored to unite both views, namely, that Jesus slew the passover at the same time with the Jews, but only ate the custom- ary supper, in the following manner : In that year in which the first paschal day fell on a Sunday, the pas- chal lamb could not be slain on the previous day, the Jewish Sabbath ; nor could it conveniently have been slain on Friday, the preparation for the Sabbath. Sup- pose, then, that it was slain on Thursday, to be eaten on Sunday, the 14th of Nisan ; but that Jesus, in view of his own approaching death, chose to anticipate the day. But we are expressly assured by the Mishna {Pe- sac/i. vi, 1) that the passover could be slain on Sunday, and this authority cannot be overthrown by a passage of the Gemara. Besides, the expression " eat the pass- over" (see esp. Luke xxii, 7, 11) cannot well be referred to such a customary meal. This reconciliation of the Synoptics with John thus depends upon a makeshift supposition that the former expressed themselves very inaccurately. Under such a view, how is it possible that the day on which Jesus slew and ate the paschal lamb could be called " the first day of unleavened bread ?" (Matt, xxvi, 17; Mark xiv, 12; Luke xxii, 7). (For a careful discussion of this question, see the art. on " The alleged discrepancy," etc., in the Biblioth. Sac. 1845, p. 406 sq.)
(2.) The current of opinion in modern times (Lucke, Ideler, Tittmann, Bleek, Ue Wette, Neander, Tischen- dorf, AViner, Ebrard, Alford, Ellicott; of earlier critics, Erasmus, Grotius, Suicer, Carpzov) has set in favor of taking the more obvious interpretation of the passages in John, that the supper was eaten on the 13th, and that our Lord was crucified on the 14th. It must, however, be admitted that most of those who advocate this view in some degree ignore the difficulties which it raises in any respectful interpretation of the synoptical narratives. Tittmann {Meleteinata, p. 476) simply re- marks that ?'/ TrpioTT] TMV aZ,v^iwv (JIatt. xxvi, 17 ; Mark xiv, 12) should be explained as irpoTtpa rwv aZi'i- fidiv. Dean Alford, while he believes that the narra- tive of John "absolutely excludes such a supposition as that our Lord and his disciples ate the usual passover," acknowledges the difficulty and dismisses it {On Matt, xxvi. 17).
Those who thus hold that the supper was eaten on the 13th daj' of the month have devised various ways of accounting for this circumstance, of which the follow- ing arc the most important. It will be observed that in the first three the supper is regarded as a true pas- chal supper, eaten a day before the usual time ; and in the other two, as a meal of a peculiar kind.
(a.) It is assumed that a party of the Jews, probably the Sadducees and those who inclined towards them, used to eat the passover one day before the rest, and that our Lord apiiroved of their practice. But there is not a shadow of liisiorical evidence of the existence of any party wliich might have held such a notion until the controversy between tiie llabbinists and the Kara- ites arose, which was not much before the 8th century. Iken {His.iertatione.i, vo\. ii, diss. 10 and 12), forgetting the late date of the Karaite controversy, supposed that our Lord might have followed them in taking the day which, according to their custom, was calculated from the first appearance of the moon. Carpzov {A pp. Crit. p. 430) advocates the same notion, without naming the Karaites. Ebrard conjectures that some of the poorer
Galilfeans may have submitted to eat the passover a day too early to suit the convenience of the priests, who were overdone with the labor of sprinkling the blood and (as he strangely imagines) of slaughtering the lambs.
{h.) It has been conjectured that the great body of the Jews had gone wrong in calculating the true Pass- over-day, placing it a day too late, and that our Lord ate the passover on what was really the 14th, but what commonly passed as the 13th. This was the opinion of Beza, Bucer, Calovius, and Scaliger. It is favored by Stier. But it is utterly unsupported by historical testimony.
(c.) Calvin supposed that on this occasion, though our Lord thought it right to adhere to the true legal time, the Jews ate the passover on the 15th instead of the 14th, in order to escape from the burden of two days of strict observance (the daj' of holy convocation and the weekly Sabbath) coming together {Harm, in Matt, xxvi, 17; ii, 305, edit. Tholuck). But that no practice of this kind could have existed so early as our Lord's time is satisfactorily proved in Cocceius's note to Sanhedrim, vol. i, § 2 (Surenhusius's Mislina, iv, 209).