APPENDIX 5 - John and the Synoptics on Passover Chronology
APPENDIX 5
John and the Synoptics on Passover Chronology
Some have used Passovers to reconstruct John’s chronology1 and have claimed conflicts between John and the Synoptics, but it seems better (in view of John’s usual literary strategies) to read John’s final Passover chronology symbolically.2 Passover began at sundown with the Passover meal. Whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is apparently executed on the day of the Passover sacrifice preceding the evening meal (Jn 18:28; 19:14), the Synoptics present the last supper as a Passover meal, presupposing that the lamb has already been offered in the temple. 3 Both traditions — a paschal last supper and a paschal crucifixion — are theologically pregnant,4 but we suspect that Jesus, followed by the earliest tradition, may have intended the symbolism for the last supper, whereas John has applied the symbolism more directly to the referent to which the last supper itself was intended to symbolically point.
Many scholars have argued plausibly that John’s chronology here is correct, 5 noting that the last supper narrative does not explicitly mention a lamb,6 that an execution on the first day of the feast was inconceivable, and suggesting that the disciples could have celebrated Passover early, according to a sectarian calendar,7 or that Mark inserted Passover references for theological reasons.8 Other details of the Passion Narrative behind Mark, such as the Sanhedrin originally wishing to kill Jesus before the feast (Mk 14:1-2), Simon coming from the fields (15:21, which some take as coming from work), or burial on a “preparation day” (which in Mk 15:42 is preparation for the Sabbath, but some take as preparation for Passover)9 can support the Johannine chronology. The rabbis also spoke of Jesus’ execution on the eve of Passover,10 although this is a late polemical tradition probably deriving its information from early Christian sources that may reflect John’s Gospel or its tradition.
But the priestly aristocracy might act even on Passover to preserve public order, and Pilate would care little for calendrical matters. Likewise, an execution on the day on which the lamb had been eaten would deter crowds no less than one on the day on which they were being slaughtered, if the site of execution were not far outside Jerusalem’s walls. The minor details “behind” Mark’s Passion Narrative could also be explained in other ways that fit the narrative equally well. Mark could simply be correct that the preparation was for the Sabbath; 11 Simon could come “from the fields” because he has spent the night in a suburb like Bethphage.12
The main argument against the Johannine chronology in a conflict between John and the Synoptics is that on most points Mark’s narrative seems more dependable for historical detail, John’s more expository (although many hold John’s chronology to be an exception, especially regarding the duration of Jesus’ ministry). Thus many scholars suggest that the Synoptics are correct; the Synoptics certainly portray the last supper as a Passover meal, even on details that their audiences would no longer have recognized as relevant.13
Those favoring the Johannine dating respond that, whereas the Synoptics regard the meal as a Passover meal (this is “challenged by no one”), this does not decide the historical question;14 but then why do Mark and Paul, writing earlier than John and even for Gentile audiences, conform the narrative so closely to Passover traditions? And if the Synoptics report the disciples actually keeping the Passover but on a “sectarian” date, would sectarians have observed so many other traditional Paschal customs as the text suggests? Jeremias admittedly depends on later traditions, but what evidence we do have fits the Gospel narratives and can hardly have derived from them. As scholars often note,15 John certainly had theological reasons to place the death of God’s lamb (Jn 1:29) on Passover (Jn 19:36).
One could argue that Jesus (and the Synoptics) and the temple authorities (and John) followed separate calendars;16 but our evidence for these calendars is relatively scant, and even if such separate calendars existed, why would John prefer that of the temple authorities? How would he expect his post-70 audience to recognize that he was doing so? One attempt to harmonize the Johannine and Synoptic dating, originally associated with a proposal of Annie Jaubert in 1957,17 has commended itelf to a number of scholars. According to this proposal, Jesus followed a solar calendar like the one used at Qumran, but Jerusalem’s official Passover, and the one followed by John, occur afterward. Given sectarian calendars18 and even calendrical differences among later rabbis due to different witnesses regarding the new moon,19 it is not impossible that Jesus’ disciples followed an Essene, sectarian date for the Passover.20
But other scholars have raised more persuasive objections against this thesis. 21 For one, would such an important disagreement with the Temple authorities have gone unnoted in the tradition? After all, calendrical matters constituted a major debate in early Judaism, and had they been central to Jesus’ conflict with the authorities, one might expect mention of this point. (The exception would be if this information were suppressed by the later church if it had reverted to the common practice. But probability is against their siding with the authorities against their own teacher; other sects would not have done so.) Further, if Jesus followed a sectarian calendar at this Passover, why do John’s narratives imply that he did not do so at other festivals (2:13; 7:2; 10:22)?22 It is also possible that John followed a Palestinian and the Synoptics the Diaspora reckoning of Passover,23 but this proposal fails to explain the Paschal character of the last supper tradition, the accommodation of Diaspora pilgrims at the festival, and again the inadequacy of supporting evidence in the tradition.
Calendrical differences may allow us to harmonize John and the Synoptics, but most likely, John has simply provided a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death, as many commentators (including myself)24 have argued. This approach would fit the way he opens Jesus’ ministry with the Temple cleansing so that the shadow of passion week may cover the whole period. If the two accounts must be harmonized, however, the simplest, Ockham’s razor solution would be the best; one such possibility is that “Jesus, knowing that he would be dead before the regular time for the meal, deliberately held it in secret one day early.”25 Another plausible suggestion is that Jn 18:28 refers to them eating the rest of the feast of unleavened bread,26 a solution that is linguistically defensible (though not the text’s most obvious sense) but does not seem to match the other clues in John’s narrative. At the very least John retains enough ambiguity to allow the reading (and, if we lacked the Synoptic passion tradition, to assume the reading) that Jesus was crucified on Passover. John probably does know the same tradition as Mark. Whatever the traditions behind the Gospels, however, Mark’s and John’s approaches at least imply (perhaps for theological reasons) the Passover on different days, yet derive from it the same theology: Jesus’ death is a new passover, a new act of redemption (cf. also 1 Cor 5:7).