Questioning apologetics on Last Supper contradiction

[squaferno]

I am close to converting to Christianity, but I have a major problem with answers by apologists on what seems to be a contradiction between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels.

The Synoptic Gospels all state that the Last Supper was a Passover feast, but John 18:28 shows that the Passover began the next night.

Apologists give two suggestions:

1. Jesus anticipated his death, and so he moved the feast.
2. There were calendar disputes in 1st century Jerusalem, and so Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover feast the night before the pharisees did so.

I reject both suggestions because Luke 22 makes it clear that the disciples knew that this was a Passover feast, and of course they had to know what they were participating in (albeit the Eucharist was a mystery), but yet in John 13:29 they thought that Judas might have been going out to prepare for the feast - but this was while they were already eating (Luke 22:20-21).

I’m hoping that someone proves me wrong or provides another solution.

 

[Vico]

I am close to converting to Christianity, but I have a major problem with answers by apologists on what seems to be a contradiction between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels.

The Synoptic Gospels all state that the Last Supper was a Passover feast, but John 18:28 shows that the Passover began the next night.

Apologists give two suggestions:

1. Jesus anticipated his death, and so he moved the feast.
2. There were calendar disputes in 1st century Jerusalem, and so Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover feast the night before the pharisees did so.

I reject both suggestions because Luke 22 makes it clear that the disciples knew that this was a Passover feast, and of course they had to know what they were participating in (albeit the Eucharist was a mystery), but yet in John 13:29 they thought that Judas might have been going out to prepare for the feast - but this was while they were already eating (Luke 22:20-21).

I’m hoping that someone proves me wrong or provides another solution.

The Synoptic Gospels use the Pharisee Passover rule. St. John, who does not give the day of the Last Supper, calls Friday the “day of preparation” instead of Thursday, because the Sadducees moved the Passover to Saturday and celebrated the day of preparation on Friday, rather than on Thursday as Jesus and the apostles did, and the Sadducees had a large number of priests, a great influence. However the Sadducees were liberal and did not believe in the resurrection, so were not followed as the legitimate authority by Jesus.

See:

How Do We Explain the Passover "Discrepancy"? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[squaferno]

The Synoptic Gospels use the Pharisee Passover rule. St. John, who does not give the day of the Last Supper, calls Friday the “day of preparation” instead of Thursday, because the Sadducees moved the Passover to Saturday and celebrated the day of preparation on Friday, rather than on Thursday as Jesus and the apostles did, and the Sadducees had a large number of priests, a great influence. However the Sadducees were liberal and did not believe in the resurrection, so were not followed as the legitimate authority by Jesus.

See:

How Do We Explain the Passover "Discrepancy"? | Catholic Answers

I got some details wrong on suggestion 2, but my reason for rejecting it still stands.

 

[Mintaka]

Brant Pitre has a book about this, “Jesus and the Last Supper.”

Basically, he points out that there were multiple times during the 8 days of Passover that one could be said to be eating the Passover, and that contemporary sources support this.

He goes in depth into everybody’s various theories on dating, as well as going into everything else related to the Last Supper. (It’s also a good primer on how a lot of famous academics didn’t actually bother to research their guesses about Second Temple customs and rules… heh.)

It’s a pretty thick academic book, but it’s well worth reading. Just start wading in!

And it’s on Kindle, if you don’t want to wait for a library or print copy.

 

[po18guy]

He instituted the New Testament, not a continuation of the old. He, being the eternal Word made flesh, is Master of time and space.

 

[BartholomewB]

Squaferno.―There are grounds for suspecting that the Last Supper described in the Fourth Gospel may also be a Passover meal, just as it is in the Synoptics, despite the later verse (John 18:28) which states clearly that “the Jews did not enter the palace [because] they wanted to be able to eat the Passover,” I have outlined this argument on another thread (link below) in a comment addressed to Fr David. Take a look – you may find it has a bearing on your question. It’s comment No, 112 on the thread.

Is it true the church changed the Sabbath? Apologetics

Reposting an earlier comment, duly amended (with thanks to Fr David for pointing out my mistake). Blanchardman.―Your question 1, to which you give the answer “No,” can be read in two ways. (a) Did the Last Supper follow exactly the rules that the Lord gave to Moses in Exodus 12? (b) Did the Last Supper follow the pattern of the Passover celebration as it was normally observed in Judea in the Herodian period? I imagine it’s possible that you might answer “No” to both questions, but then agai…

 

[De_Maria]

A big problem in understanding the Passover, is the fact that it was a week long event. Non-Catholic Christians tend to think it was a single day event.

Therefore, since it was a week long event, they could have been celebrating a Passover dinner, and yet still have things to do to prepare for the rest of the Passover.

 

[squaferno]

There are a lot of very helpful responses here, and I am very grateful. I will be looking at the recommended resources.

 

[Vico]

…
I got some details wrong on suggestion 2, but my reason for rejecting it still stands.

You gave the reason as: “John 18:28 shows that the Passover began the next night”.

However, there must be more, because that cannot be certain since John does not say that. What is your other reason?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[squaferno]

-Vico

You quoted where I was setting up context. My reasons for rejecting the 2nd point was in fact in the penultimate paragraph of my original post.

But now people have been helpful and I concede that there is no problem.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Pontius “Pilot”?

 

[Vico]

Pontius “Pilot”?

Homophones. Spelled wrong in the original timeline.

 

[BartholomewB]

Homophones. Spelled wrong in the original timeline.

Yes, but it looks bad. There are other sloppy spelling mistakes, such as “Gesthemane” and “Sanhedron”.

A more serious error, however, is that footnote: NOTE: John’s “sixth hour” is according to the Roman calendar, and would be around 6 AM, which aligns perfectly with the Synoptics.

To the best of my knowledge, that statement is counterfactual. The Romans divided the natural day into twelve equal “hours,” counted from dawn till dusk or from sunrise till sunset. The Roman “hour” was shorter in winter and longer in summer. In any case, the ”sixth hour” in John 19:14 can only be midday .

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Homophones. Spelled wrong in the original timeline.

Yes, but it looks bad. There are other sloppy spelling mistakes, such as “Gesthemane” and “Sanhedron”.

A more serious error, however, is that footnote: NOTE: John’s “sixth hour” is according to the Roman calendar, and would be around 6 AM, which aligns perfectly with the Synoptics.

To the best of my knowledge, that statement is counterfactual. The Romans divided the natural day into twelve equal “hours,” counted from dawn till dusk or from sunrise till sunset. The Roman “hour” was shorter in winter and longer in summer. In any case, the ”sixth hour” in John 19:14 can only be midday .

There are sources stating that the Romans reckoned each day from midnight to midnight. See, for example: Aulus Gelius (c. 125 – after 180 A.D.) comments on writings of Marcus Varro (116 - 27 B.C.). Plutarch says the day was from midnight to midnight (46 - 120 A.D.). Same for Roman jurist Paulus (2nd-3rd c. A.D.) See page 215 in Sunday in Roman Paganism, By Robert Leo Odom.

Different peoples reckoned the day differently, according to Pliny the Elder (23 - 79 A.D.): sunrise to sunrise (Babylonians), noon to noon (Umbrians), sunset to sunset (Athenians), and midnight to midnight (Romans and Egyptians).

Also see: Daily Life in Ancient Rome - The People and the City at the Height of the Empire by Jerome Carcopino, Chapter VI:

“Finally, each day of the seven was divided into twenty-four hours which were reckoned to begin, not, as with the Babylonians, with sunrise, nor, as among the Greeks, with sunset, but as is still the case with us, at midnight.”

 

[tafan2]

I strongly recommend Pope Benedict XVI’s second (in order of publishing) volume of Jesus of Nazareth, which covers Holy Week. He goes into this issue is quite a bit of detail.

 

[BartholomewB]

There are sources stating that the Romans reckoned each day from midnight to midnight.

Yes, the day was reckoned from midnight to midnight. But they didn’t divide it up into 24 hours, the way we do. That was a much later invention. In Rome, the natural day (longer in summer, shorter in winter) was divided into twelve hours and the night into four watches.

“Finally, each day of the seven

Jerome Carcopino is a highly distinguished historian of Roman antiquity. Nevertheless, there is an obvious mistake here. Only the Jews had a seven-day week at that time. Not the Romans or Greeks.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

There are sources stating that the Romans reckoned each day from midnight to midnight.

Yes, the day was reckoned from midnight to midnight. But they didn’t divide it up into 24 hours, the way we do. That was a much later invention. In Rome, the natural day (longer in summer, shorter in winter) was divided into twelve hours and the night into four watches.

“Finally, each day of the seven

Jerome Carcopino is a highly distinguished historian of Roman antiquity. Nevertheless, there is an obvious mistake here. Only the Jews had a seven-day week at that time. Not the Romans or Greeks.

It is irrelevant to this discussion if the hours were of various number of minutes not sixty. Constantine adopted a seven day week. So there was a market week that was longer than seven.

The Romans had seven days per the gods, and were even in use in the year 60 A.D.:

• Dies Saturni (Saturn)
• Dies Solis (Sun)
• Dies Lunae (Moon)
• Dies Martus (Mars)
• Dies Mercurii (Mercury)
• Dies Jovis (Jupiter)
• Dies Veneris (Venus)

 

[BartholomewB]

Constantine adopted a seven day week.

Now you’ve put your finger on it. Constantine is the key to the puzzle. The earliest written records testifying to a seven-day week in the Roman Empire date from the early years of Constantine’s reign, after the Christian Church had been granted official recognition and toleration. The Church, however, did not adopt the pagan names. Sunday was called dies dominica, the Lord’s Day, Saturday was called sabbatum,the Sabbath, and the other five days were simply numbered from feria secunda (Monday) to feria sexta (Friday).

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Constantine adopted a seven day week.

Now you’ve put your finger on it. Constantine is the key to the puzzle. The earliest written records testifying to a seven-day week in the Roman Empire date from the early years of Constantine’s reign, after the Christian Church had been granted official recognition and toleration. The Church, however, did not adopt the pagan names. Sunday was called dies dominica, the Lord’s Day, Saturday was called sabbatum,the Sabbath, and the other five days were simply numbered from feria secunda (Monday) to feria sexta (Friday).

That was a standard adoption. The days of the week were used before that (see Pompeiian graffito).

 

[BartholomewB]

The days of the week were used before that (see Pompeiian graffito).

The Pompeian graffito dated to AD 60 says “dies solis”. Just the one day. No other days. No seven-day week.