The dating of the last supper Part IV: A convincing explanation proposed 75 years ago
75 years ago, a Jewish Bible scholar and Rabbi proposed a convincing solution to the seeming chronological discrepancy between the account of the synoptic gospels on the one hand and John’s gospel on the other - a solution, however, little taken notice of.
In 1949, Rabbi Julian Morgenstein, president of Hebrew Union College. wrote a striking article in the Crozer Quarterly (Note 1), presenting a convincing solution to the presumed discrepancy between the chronology of the last supper in the synoptics and John’s gospel: According to him, John had described the events leading to Yeshua’s death and resurrection from the perspective of Normative Judaism and the lunar calendar observed by the Jewish authorities, whereas the writers of the synoptic gospels and acts had written from the perspective of the calendar Yeshua and His disciples followed, starting the day not at sunset but at sunrise. Reckoning the day from sunrise, so Morgenstern, was a Galilean peculiarity.
Personally, I found it stunning as well as inspiring how this resolves all discrepancies and makes the whole passion week fall into place harmoniously in all gospel accounts.
I want to repeat, however, what I already have stated in my previous post: In my opinion, in view of the “calendar wars” going on at the time in Israel, it is erroneous to assume Yeshua followed one or another party; rather, He clarified the right understanding of Holy Time and Holy Festivals. In another post I will show why I find the explanation of Yeshua following “the Galilean calendar” problematic. The gospels themselves stand against the presumption of a particular “Galilean” calendar.
1. The chronology of the Passion week according to John
“Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.” John 12:1
Passover, according to normative Judaism, was on Friday, the day Yeshua was crucified, as we know from John 18:28 and 19:31. Therefore, six days before the Passover was a Shabbat.
I have heard a Messianic Jew, Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, saying with great conviction that this is obviously impossible, as on Shabbat Jews would not travel. Therefore he simply claimed that the “correct day” Yeshua arrived at Bethany was Sunday.
Instead of changing the text, let us rather consider Morgenstern’s approach. As I have read one paper in which his theory is not understood correctly, I want to specify what he obviously meant.
For the followers of Yeshua, the new date started at sunrise, in other words half a day earlier than Normative Judaism. As an example: Saturday, the day Yeshua arrived at Bethany, was the 9th of Nisan from sunrise for Yeshua and His disciples. For the Jewish authorities however, the 9th of Nisan started only at sunset in the evening.
The day of the week likewise started at sunrise for Yeshua and His followers. However, the weekday starts half a day later than in Normative Judaism, for whom Shabbat had already started the evening before. In our example the 9th of Nisan at sunrise was the beginning of Shabbat, whereas for the Jewish authorities Shabbat had already started the evening before at sunset. This reckoning of the day from sunrise corresponds with the Biblical period, i.e. the Pentateuch (Note 2).
Presumably therefore, Yeshua and His disciples had spent the night close to Bethany, for example at the mount of Olives, directly beside Bethany (cf. Luke 21:37) and arrived at the house of Lazarus and his sisters before sunrise. From the Normative Jewish perspective, it was already Shabbat, for Yeshua however, Shabbat started only with sunrise; consequently, He did would not have violated the Shabbat according to His reckoning of the day.
On the Shabbat Yeshua had arrived at Lazarus’ house, that very same evening a dinner was hosted for Him. On this occasion, Lazarus’ sister Mary anointed His feet with an expensive perfume, John 12:2,3. When we will look at the synoptic accounts, we shall see that Mark and Matthew narrate of an anointing by an unnamed woman not only on a different day, Tuesday, but the details also differ significantly from John’s account. At this point I would argue they actually describe another event distinct from the scene described by John.
The next day, that is: Sunday before His crucifixion, He enters Jerusalem and is hailed by the crowd who take up palm branches to greet Him, John 12:12,13. Our tradition obviously is correct when it comes to celebrating Palm Sunday. (Note 3)
Next, John relates the last supper, 13:1 ff. “It was now just before the Passover Feast, and Jesus knew that His hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father.” We know this was a Thursday, as His crucifixion was on a Friday, John 19:31, the day of Passover for the Jews, John 19:28. Therefore, coherently from John’s Normative Jewish perspective, he indicates that it was “just before the Passover Feast”. But there is another aspect why, from the Normative Jewish perspective, the last supper was not a “legitimate Passover dinner”:
Yeshua and His disciples did not eat a lamb, I am personally convinced, as I will explain in detail in another post.
2. The resurrection account: A curious description at first sight
According to John 20:1, Myriam Magdalene went to the tomb on the first day of the week, Sunday, “ while it was still dark … and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.” Morgenstein points to John’s Normative Jewish perspective, according to which Sunday had already started the evening before. Therefore, so Morgenstern, from this perspective, John is coherently saying that it was the first day of the week although it was still dark. For those who reckon the day from sunrise, Myriam actually went to the tomb when the Shabbat hadn’t ended yet, that is BEFORE Sunday.
However, John’s Resurrection account is not as clear as Morgenstein claims; quite the opposite. Only a couple of verses later, in 20:19, John writes, “When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst,…”
From the Normative Jewish perspective consistently adopted by John during Passion week, this would have been the next day, Monday, not the first day of the week, Sunday. The two verses of chapter 20, verses 1 and 19, actually cannot be reconciled, neither by a reckoning of the day from sunrise to sunrise, nor from sunset to sunset. Reckoning the day from sunrise, Myriam went to the tomb on Shabbat, not Sunday. Reckoning the day from sunset, Myriam went to the tomb on Sunday, but the evening and the events in 20:19 would have been Monday. (Note 4)
So what is going on?
The only solution to have John verses 1 and 19 happening on the same day, Sunday, as John is explicitly stating, is by starting the new day at midnight.
John, by giving his interpretation that both events - Myriam going to the tomb while it is still dark as well as Yeshua coming to the disciples in the evening - are occurring on the first day of the week, is in my understanding indicating a shift in the reckoning and understanding of Holy Time:
In Exodus 12:29, the Passover of the LORD is at midnight. Midnight, therefore, is likewise the starting point of the liberation from Egyptian slavery.
Consider again the great importance of calendrical issues and the struggle around different calendars at the time of Yeshua’s ministry. Given John’s interpretation of the events in chapter 20 verses 1 and 19 as happening on the very same day, John seems to draw a parallel to the original passover, indicating midnight of Yeshua’s Resurrection day as the pivotal point in time for our liberation from slavery of sin.
3. Resurrection day starting at midnight according to John’s interpretation: A third calendar in place in ancient Palestine
Apart from the Normative Jewish and the Essene calendar, there was a third calendar we know of with certainty having been in place in ancient Palestine governed by the Romans: The Julian calendar, which was the official calendar of the Roman Empire (Note 5) and obviously used for taxation by the occupying Roman forces.
In an article, Talmudic scholar and Jewish historian Solomon Zeitlin cited Plutarch, a Greek philosopher, as well as the Roman author Pliny the Elder, who both attest that back then, like today, the day started at midnight according to Roman timekeeping. (Note 6) Plutarch and Pliny were both living in the first century AD. From the article:
“In the Roman calendar the day began with midnight and the Jews who spoke Greek followed the Roman custom…”
Again, this Roman reckoning of time, starting the new day at midnight, is the only solution to have John 20 verses 1 and 19 happening on the same day, Sunday, as John is explicitly stating.
Now lo and behold, this is what became the standard timekeeping not only in the Christian world, but all around the globe.
The switch in timekeeping unmistakably described by John in his resurrection account to a starting of the day from midnight, is not only highlighting the parallel between the liberation from Slavery in Egypt on the one hand and our liberation from sin on the other; it is furthermore exactly what Rachel Elior so eloquently explains in her lecture on the Dead Sea Calendar: In the past, whenever there was a regime change, a new imperial ruler coming to power in history, they imposed their calendar on the people. This time, with Yeshua HaMoshiach’s death and resurrection, a whole new era started by His salvation of mankind, the age of grace, manifested by a change of time reckoning.
In this context it is important to point out that even in the early Christian community, the lunar calendar was obviously never in use, except for the computation of Easter: “Indeed, frequent discrepancies between epigraphic luna dates and the Easter cycles suggest that even in late Antiquity luna dates in inscriptions were not derived from any known Christian lunar calendar.” (emphasis added) (Note 7)
Furthermore I want to highlight another point: As I will show in Mark and the Synoptic gospels (and in Acts), Yeshua and His followers clearly reckoned the day from sunrise. Therefore, His resurrection when it was still dark, as John describes, was a problem for His disciples, because reckoning the day from sunrise meant that Yeshua rose on the second day, not the third. As I have said before, I have been told in a dream that I can rely on the resurrection account of John before even knowing the accounts cannot be reconciled; therefore I personally am certain that it WAS still dark. Unlike Matthew, Luke and Mark, who try to avoid the problem (in my personal view because of my dream), John gives us his interpretation of the events as they really happened by the two verses 1 and 19 of chapter 20. The change in timekeeping, reckoning the day from midnight (John’s solution) instead of from sunrise (as Yeshua and His followers did before the resurrection), is therefore a real change of determining Holy Time that happened with the resurrection.
Another conceivable explanation for the early resurrection would have been a change to reckoning the day from sunset. John decided differently, and to this day the world follows his decision. If this was with full awareness in the early days of Christianity I do not know.
4. Despite taking the perspective of Normative Judaism, John clearly indicates a dichotomy between Yeshua’s actions and teaching on the one hand and the law “of the Jews” on the other throughout his gospel
Although John is writing from the Normative Jewish perspective for his account of Passion week, he leaves no doubt at all that Yeshua has reserves when it comes to “their law”, that is, the law of “the Jews”:
Replying to the Pharisees, He says,“Even in YOUR own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid”, John 8:17 (talking about Deutoronomy19:15).
Replying to “the Jews” who are not believing in Him at the Feast of Dedication, He comments the following: “Is it not written in YOUR Law: ‘I have said you are gods’”, John 10:34 (referring to Psalm 82:6)
But even more importantly, when making His long prayer at the last supper, immediately before His passion begins, Yeshua says the following: “Whoever hates Me hates My Father as well. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. But this is TO FULFIL what is written in THEIR Law: ‘They hated Me without reason.’” John 15:23-25 (referring to Psalms 35:19; 69:4)
John then goes on to narrate Yeshua’s arrest and crucifixion from “their” perspective, thereby unmistakably pointing to the idea that this as well is a fulfilment of THEIR law, which includes their dating of the Feasts: Yeshua, the Lamb of God, dying on the Cross precisely when the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the temple of Jerusalem.
Yeshua HaMoshiach, the true Lamb of God: This is the clarification we only get through John’s gospel writing from “their”, “the Jews’ ”, perspective. (Note 8)
In part V I will look at the perspective of reckoning the day from sunrise in Mark as representative for the synoptic gospels.
(1) Julian Morgenstern, “The reckoning of the day in the gospels and acts”, in: CROZER QUARTERIY, Vol, XXVI, No, 3, July, 1949, p. 232 ff; actually, this approach had already been proposed before that date.
(2) I will explain in another post why this reckoning obviously corresponds to the Biblical period, i.e. the Biblical text. This is of course not uncontested, but in my view the objections do not withstand closer scrutiny.
(3) Harold W. Hoehner in “Chronological aspects of the Life of Christ”, Zondervan cooperation, 1977, p.91, although actually following Morgenstern’s convincing solution, surprisingly changes John’s text - for whatever reasons - in order to come to Yeshua’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Monday: According to him, John 12:9-11 happened “On the next day (Sunday)”. This is simply not the wording of the text (cf. also the Greek original).
(4) The Greek word ὄψιος, opsios, evening, can also mean the period from three to six o'clock p. m, not, however, in John 20:19 , where it designates the period after six o’clock according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Morgenstein obviously came to the same conclusion, otherwise he would have mentioned the verse and his deviant explanation.
(5) The Julian Calendar had been instituted in 46 BC throughout the Roman Empire and is actually the same as our Gregorian calendar today, the latter being simply the result of an intercalation that had been necessary centuries later, as the year does not have exactly 365,25 days. (The Normative Jewish calendar was, of course, used for cultic purposes alongside the official Julian Calendar. Furthermore, Sacha Stern raises the question whether the Normative Jewish calendar had an official status in the Roman Empire beside the Julian Calendar or if it only functioned as a dissident local calendar: Sacha Stern, “Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies”, 2012, p. 331, 332
(6) Solomon Zeitlin, “The beginning of the Jewish day during the Second Commonwealth”, in: Jewish Quarterly Review 36 (1945-46), p. 410
(7) Stern, op.cit. p. 323, See note (5);
(8) To me, this is a clear indication that John, when writing his gospel, was aware of at least one of the synoptic gospels and was trying to complete lacuna in the other account(s).