John vs. Synoptics re Time of Crucifixion

[CThomas]

I would be curious to hear thoughts about the best way to reconcile John's and the synoptics' respective chronologies of the crucifixion. A naive reading could suggest different days for the last supper and that the synoptics place the crucifixion after the Passover feast while John places that event before the Passover feast. I'd love to hear thoughts about the best way to approach this issue.

Best regards,

CThomas

[Apollos]

I would be curious to hear thoughts about the best way to reconcile John's and the synoptics' respective chronologies of the crucifixion. A naive reading could suggest different days for the last supper and that the synoptics place the crucifixion after the Passover feast while John places that event before the Passover feast. I'd love to hear thoughts about the best way to approach this issue.

Best regards,

CThomas

I wouldn't call it naive at all. The Synoptics plainly call the Last Supper the passover (Nisan 15); yet John clearly says that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation (Nisan 14).

I believe that French scholar Annie Jaubert solved this problem. According to her, Jesus kept the solar calendar of the rightful (Zadokite) priesthood, and not the official lunar calendar of the Pharisees, according to which the Temple operated. The Gospel of John uses the official calendar in order to show that they were killing the real Passover lamb.

[kaufmannphillips]

Apollos wrote:
I believe that French scholar Annie Jaubert solved this problem. According to her, Jesus kept the solar calendar of the rightful (Zadokite) priesthood, and not the official lunar calendar of the Pharisees, according to which the Temple operated. The Gospel of John uses the official calendar in order to show that they were killing the real Passover lamb.

How would Jesus be "the real Passover lamb" If he were not being killed on the proper date according to "the solar calendar of the rightful priesthood"?


But then again - on what basis would the solar calendar be regarded as more appropriate than a lunar one? The Hebrew bible indicates that the lights in the sky were purposed to mark appointed times (Genesis 1:14f.). Since the Jewish festivals were appointed on certain days of months, it makes sense that they would be scheduled in light of lunar phenomena, and not solar phenomena. After all, the month-interval is based upon the lunar cycle. But (like our Gregorian calendar) the solar calendar that Jaubert referred to had artifical "months"; these "months" were not marked from lunar phenomena, but were divided up artificially out of the days of a solar year.

[Apollos]

How would Jesus be "the real Passover lamb" If he were not being killed on the proper date according to "the solar calendar of the rightful priesthood"?

Are you asking me how the ancient sect of the Christians conceived of Jesus as the Passover lamb, when the Synoptics show Jesus eating a Passover before the official Preparation?

Here is my suggestion ...

The early Christians would no doubt have noticed that the Jews crucified Jesus on the very day that the Jews were keeping as their Passover, and would have derived meaning from that.

The alternative is that they accepted both calendars as legitimate.

But then again - on what basis would the solar calendar be regarded as more appropriate than a lunar one?

Are you asking me why many ancient Jewish groups used a solar calendar rather than the lunar one? They aren't here to ask. Probably Vanderkam is right, when he says that the lunar calendar was an innovation in the early second century, which would mean that the solar (or rather solar-lunar) calendar was the more ancient.

The Hebrew bible indicates that the lights in the sky were purposed to mark appointed times (Genesis 1:14f.). Since the Jewish festivals were appointed on certain days of months, it makes sense that they would be scheduled in light of lunar phenomena, and not solar phenomena. After all, the month-interval is based upon the lunar cycle. But (like our Gregorian calendar) the solar calendar that Jaubert referred to had artifical "months"; these "months" were not marked from lunar phenomena, but were divided up artificially out of the days of a solar year.

Have you actually read Jaubert? Anyway, ancient Jewish groups did keep a solar calendar - the Qumran community - so it's really irrelevant to argue about what they would have or would not have done.

[kaufmannphillips]

Apollos wrote:
Are you asking me how the ancient sect of the Christians conceived of Jesus as the Passover lamb, when the Synoptics show Jesus eating a Passover before the official Preparation?

Here is my suggestion ...

The early Christians would no doubt have noticed that the Jews crucified Jesus on the very day that the Jews were keeping as their Passover, and would have derived meaning from that.

The alternative is that they accepted both calendars as legitimate.

"[T]he Jews crucifed Jesus"?

Early Christians could be clever, enterprising, and none-too-anal-retentive in making use of scriptures (q.v., Matthew 2:15; Galatians 4:24ff.; Barnabas 9:7ff.). Some early Christians could have correlated Jesus with the Passover lamb readily enough, despite technical aspects of incongruity.

But we are responsible for our own theological diligence. If Jesus does not die at the appointed time for the Passover sacrifice, then is he the “real Passover lamb”?

Contention over sabbath observance shows up plainly in early Christian literature. If Jesus and his followers had acted according to a calendar that conflicted with the dictates of mainstream Jewish leadership, we might have seen some ripple from this in the early literature. But admittedly, such is an argument from silence.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
But then again - on what basis would the solar calendar be regarded as more appropriate than a lunar one?

Apollos wrote:
Are you asking me why many ancient Jewish groups used a solar calendar rather than the lunar one? They aren't here to ask. Probably Vanderkam is right, when he says that the lunar calendar was an innovation in the early second century, which would mean that the solar (or rather solar-lunar) calendar was the more ancient.

“[M]any ancient Jewish groups”?

Shemaryahu Talmon writes in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (edited by VanderKam & Lawrence Schiffman): “The considerable number of chronographic rota and calendar-related statements from the Qumran site stands out in comparison to texts discovered at various other Judean Desert sites. Remains of biblical books, apocryphal and liturgical compositions, and historical documents have turned up at Masada, Wadi Murabba’at, Nahal Hever, and Nahal Se’elim. But not a single fragment of a calendrical work was found at any one of these sites. The covenanters’ intense preoccupation with the issue of calendar has no parallel in Hellenistic, early Christian, or rabbinic reports about schismatic communities in Judaism at the turn of the era.”

For what it’s worth, Talmon hypothesizes a third- or fourth-century date for the ascendancy of the lunar calendar – though his remarks would afford the possibility that the lunar calendar existed before that time.

But his preceding remarks are more telling: “[Some scholars] presume that the lunar calendar was introduced into the Jerusalem Temple during the Second Temple period. No definite information on this can be elicited from the sources at our disposal.”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The Hebrew bible indicates that the lights in the sky were purposed to mark appointed times (Genesis 1:14f.). Since the Jewish festivals were appointed on certain days of months, it makes sense that they would be scheduled in light of lunar phenomena, and not solar phenomena. After all, the month-interval is based upon the lunar cycle. But (like our Gregorian calendar) the solar calendar that Jaubert referred to had artifical "months"; these "months" were not marked from lunar phenomena, but were divided up artificially out of the days of a solar year.

Apollos wrote:
Have you actually read Jaubert? Anyway, ancient Jewish groups did keep a solar calendar - the Qumran community - so it's really irrelevant to argue about what they would have or would not have done.

I have not read Jaubert’s text itself. If I have mischaracterized the calendar she refers to, then your correction would be welcome.

If you are broadly familiar with Qumranic literature, then you might agree that it exhibits great religious creativity. Scripture (and/or proto-scripture and/or archaic tradition) is manhandled within it to a significant extent; and at times the manhandling quite readily appears to be anachronistic. So when this literature indicates support for a solar calendar, it is rather possible that this calendar was a latter-day innovation.

[Apollos]

Shemaryahu Talmon writes in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (edited by VanderKam & Lawrence Schiffman): “The considerable number of chronographic rota and calendar-related statements from the Qumran site stands out in comparison to texts discovered at various other Judean Desert sites. Remains of biblical books, apocryphal and liturgical compositions, and historical documents have turned up at Masada, Wadi Murabba’at, Nahal Hever, and Nahal Se’elim. But not a single fragment of a calendrical work was found at any one of these sites. The covenanters’ intense preoccupation with the issue of calendar has no parallel in Hellenistic, early Christian, or rabbinic reports about schismatic communities in Judaism at the turn of the era.”

There's no comparison between the manuscripts showing up at Qumran and elsewhere - we simply can't make any statement about how widespread the solar calendar was based upon a few scraps. However, I was under the impression that the liturgical work, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which showed up at Masada, used the solar calendar in its liturgical observance. Talmon's work might be out of date. I'll also note that both of the editors of the Encyclopedia thought that the Solar calendar was widespread, with Schiffman going so far in one of his works as saying that the Qumran community were Sadducee in their Halaka, and that the Pharisees ran the Temple cultus. But the argument for the solar calendar being widespread and the more ancient is that made from the books of Enoch and the book of Jubilees, which were used by the early Christians. We have also found astro-calendrical symbolism in synagogues. That's just what comes to mind; but the evidence isn't negligible. I'd be cautious about accepting his conclusion about the rabbis as well; I'll try to see if I can track it down, but I think I recall coming across a mention of this.
I also note that Talmon seeks to portray the authors of the Qumran writings as a small sect. From what I can see (and the Oxford Dictionary of the DDS which came out in 2010 reinforces that impression), this is an outdated view, since we know that there are over 900 different scribes represented at Qumran. This was no small, isolated movement.

For what it’s worth, Talmon hypothesizes a third- or fourth-century date for the ascendancy of the lunar calendar – though his remarks would afford the possibility that the lunar calendar existed before that time.

Who knows who is right? But I think that Vanderkam's argument from Enoch and Jubilees has merit (he notes that the latter seems to reflect a time when the solar was replaced by the lunar, as it is more polemical than Enoch). Vanderkam thinks that the lunar calendar was adopted when the Seleucids forced the Jews to offer a monthly sacrifice to their king, which coincided with the time when the ancient priesthood was deposed. This is all in his work 'From Revelation to Canon', but I'm unable to regurgitate any more without going back and reading it again.

I have not read Jaubert’s text itself. If I have mischaracterized the calendar she refers to, then your correction would be welcome.

I can't say I fully understand it myself, as it's very complex, but she purports to restore the calendar of Jubilees, and is able to assign a day of the week for every dated event in the Hebrew Bible. Vanderkam defends her thesis. Days fall when we would expect them to - traveling days don't fall on or before the Sabbath, etc. It's well worth a read, and one of her books has been translated into English.

If you are broadly familiar with Qumranic literature, then you might agree that it exhibits great religious creativity. Scripture (and/or proto-scripture and/or archaic tradition) is manhandled within it to a significant extent; and at times the manhandling quite readily appears to be anachronistic. So when this literature indicates support for a solar calendar, it is rather possible that this calendar was a latter-day innovation.

This idea of creative exegesis is of course very popular right now, but I'm not convinced by the arguments: not yet anyway. But the arguments for the solar calendar don't rely solely upon Qumran, but also upon Inter-Testamental literature.

[Apollos]

Early Christians could be clever, enterprising, and none-too-anal-retentive in making use of scriptures (q.v., Matthew 2:15; Galatians 4:24ff.; Barnabas 9:7ff.). Some early Christians could have correlated Jesus with the Passover lamb readily enough, despite technical aspects of incongruity.

But we are responsible for our own theological diligence. If Jesus does not die at the appointed time for the Passover sacrifice, then is he the “real Passover lamb”?

You make a good point. I have to step away from the evangelical view that there is an exact correspondence between the death of Christ and the minutiae of the law. I assume, since the early Christians held that Jesus ate a Passover meal the night before his death, that they also didn't share the modern view. I just think it was seen as an ironic judgment that Jesus was killed on the official feast day, by the whole congregation, and I think they appropriated that. He was the true Passover because he was taken on the official Feast Day and killed. But Jesus himself observed another calendar, and ate a Passover meal on that day, so yes, in that sense there is incongruity, but I don't think the early Christians were that concerned with it.

[kaufmannphillips]

Tardy response here:

Apollos wrote:
However, I was under the impression that the liturgical work, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which showed up at Masada, used the solar calendar in its liturgical observance. Talmon's work might be out of date.

Newsom’s critical edition of the Songs was published in ’85, so Talmon should have had adequate opportunity to consider that document for his article.

I gave a cursory look at the Songs, and it appears that the calendrical material is limited to superscriptionary material, e.g., “By the instructor. Song of the sacrifice of the seventh Sabbath on the sixteenth of the month.” Talmon may not have considered this material to be an inherent part of the document; after all, superscriptions can be peripheral to textual traditions.

Then again, Talmon might have decided that the slight superscriptionary material was not significant enough to warrant terming the Songs “a calendrical work.” The Songs document is fundamentally a liturgical work.

Apollos wrote:
I'll also note that both of the editors of the Encyclopedia thought that the Solar calendar was widespread, with Schiffman going so far in one of his works as saying that the Qumran community were Sadducee in their Halaka, and that the Pharisees ran the Temple cultus.

You might be correct about the editors’ own opinions. However, these editors let Talmon have the say in the article on calendars in their Encyclopedia. They hardly would do so if they considered his treatment of the evidence to be untenable.

Apollos wrote:
But the argument for the solar calendar being widespread and the more ancient is that made from the books of Enoch and the book of Jubilees, which were used by the early Christians.

And which were so neglected by the church that – were it not for the DSS – they would have had to be reclaimed, for the greatest part, from Ethiopian manuscripts. Of course, the Ethiopian Christian and Jewish communities have had a rather idiosyncratic character. Both have preserved texts that appear in no other Christian or Jewish traditions.

Furthermore, both Enoch and Jubilees are compositions from the middle of the Second Temple era. They are not so reliable an indicator of “more ancient” calendrical paradigms.

It seems most likely to me that the vector of ritual development would have gone from (a) rituals based on organic/observed phenomena to (b) rituals that mimicked organic/observed phenomena, but were artificially tooled to suit practical or philosophical sensibilities. This is the line of development that occurs within mainstream Judaism, with the tinkering of the Hillel calendar.

Apollos wrote:
I also note that Talmon seeks to portray the authors of the Qumran writings as a small sect. From what I can see (and the Oxford Dictionary of the DDS which came out in 2010 reinforces that impression), this is an outdated view, since we know that there are over 900 different scribes represented at Qumran. This was no small, isolated movement.

The number of scribes does not necessarily telegraph the size of the movement (if, indeed, there was a movement). For one thing, it is not a given that all of the manuscripts were produced directly by members of the movement. If what we have is the remains of the movement’s library, then many of the manuscripts could have been produced by independent sources, and acquired into the collection.

Then again, the manuscripts apparently span more than two centuries in their dates of production. Hundreds of scribes over hundreds of years may not indicate a large movement – all the more so if the sect saw significant turnover. Josephus, for example, spent three years following a desert-dwelling figure (viz., Bannus). If other educated persons went through a similar phase, the movement may have had a revolving door of scribal contributors, without fielding a large number of enduring adherents.

Apollos wrote:
Vanderkam thinks that the lunar calendar was adopted when the Seleucids forced the Jews to offer a monthly sacrifice to their king, which coincided with the time when the ancient priesthood was deposed.

This occurred in the lead-up to the Maccabean uprising. Once the Maccabees obtained control over the cultus, it seems likely to me that they would have done away with such a ritual innovation. The Maccabees stood for traditional Jewish observance, and purifying the temple of Seleucid abomination was a pinnacle of their achievements.

Apollos wrote:
This idea of creative exegesis is of course very popular right now, but I'm not convinced by the arguments: not yet anyway. But the arguments for the solar calendar don't rely solely upon Qumran, but also upon Inter-Testamental literature.

The idea of creative exegesis is not merely “popular”; it is obvious. Unless, of course, one holds to the opinion that the pesharim authentically articulate cryptic truths embedded in biblical texts, through divine inspiration. I welcome any reader to peruse the Qumranic literature and come to their own appraisal of the collection’s inspiration.

And of course, creative handling of biblical texts and traditions is not limited to the Qumranic corpus. Other period literature indicates that this was a feature of the Second Temple era.

[Apollos]

What about the Copper Scroll - who paid for that, and why, and how did it end up in a library gathered together by an insignificant semi- or non-movement? How did they come to have a connection with the treasures of the Temple?

[mattrose]

My thought would be that John simply moved the chronology around a bit in order to have Jesus die as (timewise) the lamb. The strongest objection to this would seemingly be that this makes John a give false-witness, but I don't think He ever set out to give a perfect chronological account. I think he was writing theology more than chronology.

The discussion of this subject in Joachim Jeremias' "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus" is impressive.