A question of chronology arises among theologians in connection with questions concerning the traditionally assigned dating of the Last Supper as the Passover meal. Mark identifies him as such, and the synoptic ("lookalike") evangelists Matthew and Luke follow this version, but John is equally adamant 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 early dating. For this reason there are essentially two schools of thought: J. Jeremias thinks that the Last Supper took place at the same time as the Easter dinner was celebrated, but G. Theissen thinks that it took place the previous evening. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Particular aspects of the evangelists' account of the Last Supper and the events that followed can easily be associated with typical components of the Easter celebration. First, the Supper took place in Jerusalem at a late hour. The Jews were supposed to be in Jerusalem for Passover, which began after sunset. The Greek verb in 14:18 translated as 'sitting at the table' ('aeμ') literally means were reclining: the Jews reclined Roman style during Passover as a sign of their freedom. The interpretive words were spoken over the bread and cup (14:22-5 in Mark; although understanding which gospel account is closest to Jesus' original interpretive words is extremely complex). Red wine was consumed, which is central to the tradition -- four glasses were drunk during the meal -- and which Jesus refers to as "my blood" (red wine is an obvious image of blood and this connection was certainly made by Paul at an early stage in 1 Cor. 10:16). Paul reflects 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 it was a Passover meal. The hymn sung at the end of the meal (which we will discuss in more detail in the next paragraph) also indicates the possibility of an Easter date. However, there is a discouraging amount of support leveled against the claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal work. 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 mentioned nowhere in Mark's text. Furthermore, interestingly enough, although the references to the symbol of bread almost certainly date back to the Last Supper, the interpretation of wine (which as we have discussed is another central element of the Passover meal), could perhaps have been added later in the tradition . There are numerous references to Eucharistic meals (the Eucharist is a meal consumed together by Christians as a celebration of the Last Supper), where the bread is broken, but the wine is not always drunk (Acts 2.42; Acts of Peter 555, Acts of John 109 ff. and Acts of Thomas 27 all refer simply to the breaking of the bread as the Eucharist). If we were to go ahead and assume that the Last Supper as described by Mark was actually a Passover meal, then we would have to move on. about what was omitted from the tradition because it was simply not emphasized because it was less important than the details that were included that correspond to the traditional ceremony andhighlight how distinct and different this particular Supper was. It also makes sense that he would have added elements consistent with the meal being a Passover, if in fact he believed that's what it was. If this were a Passover meal, then it would mean that the events said to have taken place in the synoptic passion narratives – the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus – all occurred on 15 Nisan, which is a holy day and therefore this was a clear violation of Jewish law. The law (and in any case the timing of the proceedings against Jesus by the religious authorities on Easter night - which is the holiest night of the year - is not practical). J Jeremias explains these discrepancies as merely permissible exceptions to typical adherence to Jewish law. While this makes a bit of sense; even if we consider how Mark probably intentionally exaggerated the corrupt inclinations of the Jewish authorities, there are still too many anomalies for this argument to be truly convincing. As J. Jeremias also raised in defense of his case, during the time of Jesus, Jews conventionally went as pilgrims to Jerusalem by the tens of thousands to visit the Temple Mount and witness the sacrifice of the Passover lamb to Hashem to prepare at the Easter meal. During this meal the story of the first Passover is told - which recalls the "passing" of the angel of death (who brought the last of the ten plagues on Egypt, the killing of the firstborn) because the Jews smeared their doorposts with blood : is represented with food and symbolic ceremonies. The crowd extolling Jesus on the road to Jerusalem on the Sunday before the Last Supper is usually explained as consisting of reveling 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 significance was the Last Supper), were to be considered indisputably sequential as Mark assigned, it would mean that these pilgrims arrived suspiciously early to a celebration that would only truly begin on 15 Nisan, that is, the following Friday (regardless of the fact that the period of time that follows Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and ends with his inevitable crucifixion is probably far greater than the five days assigned to him by Christendom) Church Calendar.) Furthermore, the details of the story of the triumphal entry are reminiscent of the Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) as TW Manson brings to light. The autumnal dating of the festival highlights an inconsistency in the story of the curse of the fig tree on the day following Jesus' journey to Jerusalem and in the days before the Last Supper meal. Difficulties arise because Jesus expects to find fruit on a fig tree he sees in the distance, subsequently cursing the tree when he finds nothing but leaves. But as Marco explicitly states, it was not the season for figs. One possible solution to this story is that the events occurred not in spring (when Passover is celebrated), but in autumn, when perhaps there was still some fruit left on the tree. This solves the problem regarding the dating of this incident, consequently making it impossible to accept the Paschal dating of the Last Supper if we assume that both stories are to be lumped together in the same visit and interpreted as claiming historicity. Although there are numerous other explanations for this contradiction, for example Mark could have included that it was not the season for figs as a deliberate suggestion for readers to take the story purely symbolically; the fig's failure to bear fruit was interpreted by William Telford (and more commonly agreed upon) as a symbol of Israel, which should bear fruitin the messianic era. According to the Talmud, during the Feast of Tabernacles, Jews waved green branches at the word "Hosanna" as part of reciting the Egyptian Hallel (taken from Psalms 113-8) to remember the Exodus. However, the second part of the hymn (Psalms 114/5-118; there was disagreement between the schools of Hillel and Shammai as to whether Psalm 114 was included in the first or second part) - which is also an essential aspect of the hymn ceremony including the Easter 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 confines of the greater Jerusalem, where he was to spend the night of Easter. These details are compatible with Mark's belief that the meal was a Passover, but this in no way makes his claims indisputable. Another identical ceremony was held during the winter: the Festival of Chanukah (, Dedication), celebrating the cleansing of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in 165 BC. This is a festival of great nationalistic importance and would provide a very suitable setting for Jesus' violent act of purification of the temple preceding the Last Supper, as FC Burkitt evaluates. One possibility is that Mark squeezed two visits into one to match the Church calendar and heighten dramatic tension, and that the triumphal entry and cleansing of the temple belong to the first visit and the curse of the fig tree and the Last Supper to the first. of the first visit. the second. It is important to note, however, that John, who (unlike Mark) states that Jesus visited Jerusalem before his triumphal entry, places both the entry and cleansing of the temple in the period preceding the Passover (John 12:12; 2:13). but technically it still does not place the Last Supper during the actual feast of Passover. Instead he places it on the 14th of Nisan, which by the reckoning of the Jewish calendar (each new Jewish day begins at sunset) is the day before the feast begins, which is when the lamb is sacrificed for the Passover meal. 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 Mishnah Berakhot (9.5), every year for a few days after 1 Nisan the money changers set up their tables to change Greek or Roman currency into a special Tyrian currency in which temple taxes and tzedakah were paid ( charity) was mandatorily paid. It seems likely that this two-week period before Passover was the only time of year in which these plates were prepared, which could support Mark's dating if we accept that Mark amalgamated numerous incidents into one temporal scheme for correspond with that of the Church. dating. Furthermore, since Mark records only Jesus' one visit to Jerusalem, he could not choose another setting to place this episode in the framework he used. However, the chronology that Mark so rigidly adopts places the Passover feast on Friday. Joseph of Arimathea goes to collect the body of Jesus in the evening, which according to Mark was the Preparation, i.e. the eve of the Sabbath, (15.42), but the fact that it was evening would mean that technically the Sabbath had already begun according to the calculation Jewish. Although the purpose of the hasty burial so desired was to dispose of Jesus' body before sunset, since burials would take place whenever possible on the day of death and at the latest on the following day, so that a death occurring on a Friday required a immediate action especially because burial on the Sabbath breaks Jewish law. This leads many commentators to point out that this conflicts with Mark's Friday chronology. It doesn't make much sense for Giuseppe to avoid itto desecrate Jewish law regarding the Sabbath by burying Jesus during the Preparation, which is another holy day. However, since John is typically considered the theologian among the evangelists, scholars tend to defend the Markan dating of the purification or assume that each of them placed the episode where he saw fit, meaning that perhaps neither is right. However, more importantly for the Last Supper, scholars tend to lean towards the Thiessen school of thought, supporting John's view that Jesus was dead and buried before the feast even began. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest 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), whereas originally an entirely separate feast was celebrated at the same time as Passover from 15 Nisan to 21 Nisan, resulting in the actual fusion of the two into one great feast; 2 Chron. 35.17 and Josephus discuss it). This unfortunately gives rise to complex dating problems. Mark, who probably counts his days in the inclusive Jewish way (as justifies 8.31) could have avoided problematic aspects if he had instead dated the plot to secretly capture and kill Jesus to the day before the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread. This is because he dated the crucifixion of Jesus to Friday, the day before the Sabbath (3.42pm), yet he states that the Last Supper meal took place on the day of Passover, which he dates to that Thursday. It is likely that he has in mind that the plot was articulated the day before the official Easter (Wednesday). It is possible that Mark, hoping to decrease Roman opposition to the Christian Church and increase its attractiveness (or perhaps for some other unknown reason), chose to associate in the Roman way. According to this calculation, two days after Wednesday we would actually arrive at the day of Jesus' passion on the cross. Some commentators then argue that this supports the dating found in the Fourth Gospel and that therefore both the Synoptic and Johannine traditions are correct. But this conclusion is incorrect because “two days before the Feast of Passover” could just as easily refer to our modern Gregorian dating of Tuesday as two days before Thursday, and the suggestion that Jesus could have celebrated Passover 24 hours earlier – without a lamb. .. cannot be supported. However, the justification of this theory given by A. Jaubert is convincing. She suggests that Jesus and his disciples actually celebrated Passover on Nisan 14, but calculated that date according to an ancient calendar established in the Book of Jubilees followed by the community living at Qumran. This theory has numerous advantages. Above all, this allows her to argue precisely that John was right in speaking of the day of the crucifixion as the day of preparation for Easter, and that Mark was also right in saying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal (even though she maintained that ). the meal took place on Tuesday evening, not Thursday.) Another advantage of this brilliant solution is that it allows much more time to pass between arrest and crucifixion and the carrying out of properly composed court proceedings. Unfortunately, this still does not explain John's desire to strictly follow the official Jewish calendar, or exactly how or why Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal in Jerusalem three days before the actual celebration began. It makes little sense that Jesus and his twelve wanted to follow the Qumran calendar, since that community had secluded itself and dissociated itself from the events.