A question of chronology arises among theologians in relation to questions concerning the dating traditionally assigned to the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Mark identifies him as such, and the synoptic evangelists ("doppelgangers") Matthew and Luke follow this version, but John is equally categorical in stating that Jesus died before the Passover meal was eaten (John 18.28; 19.14). and it is likely that Luke 22.15 is intended to convey Jesus' unfulfilled desire to eat the Passover with his disciples before suffering, which could support John's prior dating. As a result, there are essentially two schools of thought: J. Jeremias thinks that the Last Supper took place at the time the Easter meal was celebrated, but G. Theissen thinks that it took place the evening before. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay. Particular aspects of the evangelists' account of the Last Supper and the events that followed can quite easily be associated with typical elements of the Passover feast. First, the Last Supper took place in Jerusalem at a late hour. Jews would make it a point to be in Jerusalem for Passover, which began after sunset. The Greek verb in 14.18 translated as “seated at the table” (“aeµ”) literally means were reclining – the Jews bowed in the Roman style at Passover as a sign of their freedom. Words of interpretation were spoken over the bread and the cup (14:22-5 in Mark; although it is extremely complex to determine which gospel account is closest to Jesus' original words of interpretation.) Red wine was consumed, which is at the heart of the tradition -- four glasses were drunk throughout the meal - and which Jesus calls "my blood" (red wine is an obvious image of blood and this connection was certainly made by Paul at the beginning in 1 Cor. 10.16.) The same goes for Paul reflecting the traditional elements of the Passover when he says that Jesus took the wine "after supper" (1 Cor. 11.25; also Luke 22.20) as “the cup of blessing” (1 Cor. 10.16). Jesus broke bread during the meal. The breaking of bread was an essential component of the Passover meal and the fact that Jesus distributed the bread while the disciples were already eating is indicative of the belief that this was a Passover meal. Additionally, the hymn sung at the end of the meal (which will be discussed in more detail in a following paragraph) indicates the possibility of a Passover date. Nonetheless, there is an overwhelming amount of support against the claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Central aspects of the traditional Passover meal, such as bitter herbs, the Passover lamb, and the explanation of the ritual as a re-enactment of the Exodus, are not mentioned anywhere in Markan's text. Additionally, it is interesting to note that although references to the symbol of bread almost certainly date back to the Last Supper, the interpretation of wine (which, as we have seen, is another central element of the Passover meal) , could perhaps have been added later in the tradition. . There are a number of references to Eucharistic meals (eucharists are meals taken together by Christians to celebrate the Last Supper), where bread is broken, but wine is not always drunk (Acts 2:42; Acts of Peter 555, Acts of John 109f). (and Acts of Thomas 27 all simply refer to the breaking of bread as a Eucharist.) If we are to go ahead and assume that the Last Supper as described by Mark was actually a Passover meal, then we will have to go through that. about what was omitted from the tradition as simply not being emphasized because it was less important thanthe details that have been included that match the traditional ceremony and highlight how distinct and different this particular supper was. It also makes sense that he would add elements consistent with the meal being a Passover, if he actually believes that that is what it is. If this were a Passover meal, then it would be This means that the events that would have taken place in the synoptic accounts of the passion - the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus - all landed on Nisan 15, which is a holy day and, therefore, it was a blatant violation of Jewish law. The law (and in any case it is not practical to schedule a proceeding against Jesus by the religious authorities on Passover night - which is the holiest night of the year). J Jeremias explains these discrepancies as mere permissible exceptions to typical adherence to Jewish law. Although this makes a bit of sense; even considering how Mark probably intentionally exaggerated the corrupt leanings of the Jewish authorities, there are still far too many anomalies for this argument to be truly convincing. As J. Jeremias has also argued in defense of his case, during the time of Jesus, Jews traditionally went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem by the tens of thousands to visit the Temple Mount and witness the sacrifice of the Passover lamb at Hashem to prepare the Passover meal. During this meal, the story of the first Passover - which recalls the "passage" of the angel of death (who caused the last of the ten plagues on Egypt, the killing of the firstborn) because that the Jews smeared their doorposts. with blood- takes place with symbolic food and ceremony. The crowd that exalts Jesus on the way to Jerusalem on the Sunday before the Last Supper is usually explained as consisting of festival pilgrims arriving in Jerusalem for Passover. If Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem and the events leading up to his passion on the cross (an event of great importance was the Last Supper) were to be considered unquestionably sequential as Mark assigned, it would mean that these pilgrims were arriving strangely early. for a celebration which would not really begin until Nisan 15, the following Friday (no matter if the period of time following Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and ending with his inevitable crucifixion is probably much longer than the five days which are assigned by the Christian) Church Calendar.) Furthermore, the details of the story of the triumphal entry recall the feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) as highlighted by TW Manson. The dating of the feast, based on autumn, raises an inconsistency in the story of the curse of the fig tree the day after Jesus' ride to Jerusalem and a few days before the meal of the Last Supper. The difficulties arise because Jesus expects to find fruit on a fig tree he sees in the distance, then cursing the tree when he finds only leaves. But as Marc explicitly says, it was not the season for figs. A possible solution to this story is that the events took place, not in the spring (when Passover occurs), but in the fall, when there might still be some fruit left on the tree. This solves the problem of dating this incident, while consequently making it impossible to accept the Passover dating of the Last Supper if one assumes that the two stories are meant to be grouped into the same visitation and interpreted as historicity claims. Although there are many other explanations for this contradiction, such as the fact that Mark could have included that it was not fig season, as a deliberate hint to readers to take the story purelysymbolic; The fig tree's inability to bear fruit came to be understood by William Telford (and accepted most often) as a symbol of Israel, which should have borne fruit in the messianic era. According to the Talmud, during the Feast of Tabernacles, Jews waved green branches at the word "Hosanna" as part of the recitation of the Egyptian Hallel (taken from Psalms 113-8) to remember the Exodus. However, the second part of the hymn (Ps. 114/5-118; there was disagreement between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over whether Psalm 114 was included in the first or second part) - – which is also an essential aspect of the anthem. ceremony including the Passover meal- is also sung by Jesus and his disciples immediately after the Last Supper, before going to the Mount of Olives, which fell within the boundaries of the greater Jerusalem, where the Passover night was to be spent. These details are consistent with Mark's belief that the meal was a Passover, but this in no way makes his claims incontrovertible. Another identical ceremony took place in winter: the festival of Hanukkah (, Dedication), which celebrates purification. of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in 165 BC. This is a festival of great nationalist significance and would provide a very appropriate setting for the violent act of cleansing Jesus' temple leading up to the Last Supper, as FC Burkitt assesses. It is possible that Mark merged two visits into one in order to fit the Church calendar and increase the dramatic tension, and that the triumphal entry and purification of the temple belong to the first visit and that the curse of the fig tree and the Last Supper belong to the first visit. the second. It is important to note, however, that John, who (unlike Mark) claims that Jesus visited Jerusalem before his triumphal entry, places the entry and purification of the temple around the period before Passover (John 12:12; 2:13). . but still doesn't technically place the Last Supper during the Passover festival. Instead, he places it on Nisan 14, which according to the Jewish calendar (each new Jewish day began at sunset) is the day before the start of the holiday, when the lamb is sacrificed for the meal of Passover. Furthermore, while Mark places the cleansing of the temple at the very end of Jesus' earthly ministry, John places it at the beginning. According to the Mishna Tractate Berakhot (9.5), every year, for a few days after Nisan 1, the money changers would set up their tables in order to exchange Greek or Roman currency for a special Tyrian currency in which the temple tax and tzedakah (charity) was obligatorily paid. It seems likely that this two-week period preceding Passover was the only time of year when these tables were established, which may well support the dating of Markan if we accept that Mark merged many incidents into a temporal pattern to correspond to that of the Church. dating. Furthermore, since Mark only records Jesus' one visit to Jerusalem, he could not choose another framework to attribute this incident within the framework he uses. Yet the chronology that Mark so rigidly adopts places the Passover feast on a Friday. Joseph of Arimathea fetches Jesus' body in the evening, which, as Mark says, was a preparation - that is, the day before the Sabbath - (15.42), but the fact that it was in the evening would mean that the Sabbath had technically already begun according to Jewish calculation. Although the whole purpose of the coveted hasty burial was to dispose of Jesus' body before dusk, since burials would take place on the day of death whenever possible and the next day at the latest, so that a death on Friday required immediate action. especially becauseburial on the Sabbath violates Jewish law. This leads many commentators to point out that this conflicts with Mark's Friday timeline. It doesn't make much sense for Joseph to avoid the desecration of Jewish law regarding the Sabbath by burying Jesus during the preparation, which is another holy day. Nevertheless, since John is generally considered the theologian among the evangelists, scholars tend to defend the Markan dating of the cleansing or assume that each of them placed the incident where they thought it was appropriate, which which means none of them may be right. However, more importantly when it comes to the Last Supper, scholars tend to lean toward the Thiessen school of thought which supports John's view that Jesus was dead and buried before the feast even began. In fact, there is a large amount of evidence suggesting the historical accuracy of this dating. Mark places the plot of the chief priests and scribes against Jesus two days before the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread (the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when originally an entirely separate feast was celebrated at the same time as Passover from 15th Nisan to 21st Nisan, which resulted in the two effectively merging into one great feast; 2 Chron 35.17 and Josephus discuss this.) This unfortunately gives rise to complex dating problems. Mark, who probably counts his days in the inclusive Jewish way (as 8.31 warrants), could have avoided the problematic aspects if he had instead dated the plot to stealthily seize and kill Jesus to the eve of the Passover feast and Unleavened Bread. This is because he dated the crucifixion of Jesus on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (15.42), but he claims that the meal of the Last Supper took place on Passover, which he dates from that Thursday . He is likely to have in mind that the plot was articulated the day before the official Passover (Wednesday). It is possible that Mark, hoping to lessen Roman opposition to the Christian Church and increase its appeal (or perhaps for some other unknown reason), chose to date in the Roman manner. According to this calculation, two days after Wednesday would actually come the day of Jesus' passion on the cross. Some commentators then argue that this confirms the dating found in the Fourth Gospel and that, therefore, the Synoptic and Johannine traditions are correct. But this conclusion is erroneous because "two days before the feast of Passover" could just as easily refer to our modern Gregorian dating of Tuesday two days before Thursday, and to the suggestion that Jesus may have celebrated Passover 24 hours later. advance - without a lamb - cannot be sustained. However, the justification of this theory given by A. Jaubert is convincing. It suggests that Jesus and his disciples did celebrate Passover on Nisan 14, but calculated this date according to an ancient calendar set out in the Book of Jubilees followed by the community living at Qumran. This theory has many advantages. More importantly, it allows him to accurately argue that John was correct in speaking of the day of the crucifixion as the day of preparation for Passover, and that Mark was also correct in saying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal (although (she maintained that the meal took place on Tuesday and not Thursday evening.) Another advantage of this brilliant solution is that it allows much more time to elapse between the arrest and the crucifixion and allows the unfolding of a properly composed legal procedure. Unfortunately, this still does not explain John's wish to strictly follow the official Jewish calendar, nor exactly how or why Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal in Jerusalem.