Concerning the Jaubertian Chronology of the PassionAuthor(s): Norman WalkerSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 3, Fasc. 4 (Dec., 1959), pp. 317-320Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1559949 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 05:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.150 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:14:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CONCERNING THE JAUBERTIAN CHRONOLOGY OF THE PASSION

BY

NORMAN WALKER

Surrey - England

In a recent review 1) of Mdlle JAUBERT'S book "La Date de la Cene" (Paris 1957) George OGG refers to statements in the Book of Jubilees to the effect that Eve was created on a Friday, and entered the Garden of Eden on the eightieth day, which was there- fore a Tuesday, so that, since the author of the book reckoned the beginning of Jubilees, and hence of the Jubilees Calendar, from the day when Adam and Eve lived together, this must have been Tuesday. But actually Jub. iii 9 reads 2): "but his wife they brought in on the eightieth day, and after this she entered into the Garden of Eden", and iii 12 reads: "and when she had completed these

eighty days, they brought her into the Garden of Eden". Obviously it was on the eighty-first day that she entered, a Wednesday, and OGG'S objection falls to the ground.

So also in Mk. xiv I and Mt. xxvi 2 "after two days" must mean "on the third day". Hence the anointing at Bethany on Saturday evening, according to the new Chronology, points to Tuesday evening for the Paschal Meal which Jesus ate. This use of esrcx with the accusative is also seen in Mt. xvii I, Mk. ix 2, where "after six days", in accordance with Lk. ix 28 "after these things about eight days", must mean "on the seventh day". Thus another objection by OGG falls to the ground. Moreover, OGG's dismissal of the Didascalia evidence as well as that of Epiphanius and Vic- torinus is far too cavalierly to be convincing.

Again, there is no suggestion by JAUBERT that Jesus must have adhered to the Jubilees Calendar, only He may have done so. Since the Book of Jubilees, as OGG admits, was written in the second century B.C., there is every likelihood of its calendar being known

1) George OGG on Mdlle. JAUBERT: La Date de la Cene: Novum Testamen- tur III (Jan. 1959) pp. 149-160.

2) R. H. CHARLES: The Book of Jubilees (SPCK I917) pp. 47 f.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.150 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:14:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NORMAN WALKER

to Jesus and His circle, for it was plainly in use by the Essenes and the Qumran sectaries.

There are certain considerations to be borne in mind by all students of Biblical literature. First, it is clear that the writers were more concerned with recording facts and events, than in

giving detailed evidence as to time, place and mode of happening. This is evident in the stories of Creation and the Fall, and in the accounts of the Red-Sea and Jordan crossings and the fall of Jericho. In Ex. xxxii 24 Aaron avers that he cast gold ornaments into the fire and "there came out this calf"! The how of the transformation of ear-rings into the molten calf is left to the imagination. So too with "the fire of the Lord" flung at rebels by Moses, and at the "fifties" by Elijah. In all these instances there is an abbreviation

of statement, so contrary to our modern demand for exact inform- ation. Is it to be wondered at that the Gospels too, founded as they were on oral tradition of the reminiscences of the companions of Jesus, should show a like abbreviation of statement? They were written to be read out aloud to Christian congregations, and the various pericopes had of necessity to be adapted to the needs and patience of the hearers, and, in the case of the Passion, not too

long in arriving at the climax of the Crucifixion. In all telling of stories there must needs be the omission of many unimportant details, and without a great deal of abbreviation history could not be got into any one book, or even set of volumes. It is the task of the historian to select the essential items, and present them as a continuous narrative. Difference of emphasis will be made by different reporters, as in the Bible by the E and J history writers,

by the various ritual codes and sets of commandments, by the contrast of Kings with Chronicles, and by the Synoptic and Johan- nine records.

But we, who live today in an enquiring and scientific age, demand details of time and place and mode of action, and the continuous and harmonious unfolding of history. So in the Gospel story we want to know precisely what happened in the Last Week of the

earthly life of Jesus. The synoptists suggest to us that Jesus kept the Passover and instituted the Sacrament on Tuesday evening, after which He was arrested late that same might. But John plainly indicates that Jesus was condemned and crucified on the

following Friday, the Eve of the official Passover. JAUBERT main- tains that there were two different days appointed for keeping

318

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.150 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:14:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CONCERNING THE JAUBERTIAN CHRONOLOGY OF THE PASSION 319

the Passover, the one on the fifteenth of Nisan according to the Sadducean lunar calendar of the Jerusalem priesthood, the other on the fifteenth of Nisan according to the Essene, Jubilees, Qumran solar calendar. The former might fall on any day of the week, according to the decision ot the Temple calendrists, but the latter fell always on a Wednesday. JAUBERT further suggests that in that particular year these two days fell in the same week, the former on Saturday, "that sabbath was an high day", and the latter on Wednesday, so that according to the official calendar

Friday evening was the appointed time for the Paschal Meal, whereas according to the sectarian calendar Tuesday evening was the appointed time. This is a real possibility, though with our

present lack of knowledge of the comparative relationship of the two calendars the fact of the coincidence of the two days in the same week cannot be proven. But OGG's rejection of the Jaubertian chronology simply because this point cannot be "scientifically" proved strikes one as high-handed, unhelpful and unscientific. For all advances in the Natural Sciences are the result of the making and testing of hypotheses, which are not, and never should be, rejected because not immediately proven. The said chronology does indeed harmonise the Passion accounts in a wonderful manner, and, until OGG or anyone else has a better one to displace it, must

rightly hold the field. The onus lies on OGG or others to produce a

satisfactory counter-hypothesis. It is more important to build than to destroy.

Four great difficulties face the Thursday evening dating of the

Supper and Arrest. They are

(I) The dilemma that either the Synoptics are in error or the Fourth Gospel. They cannot both be right.

(2) The blankness of Holy Wednesday. (3) The impossibility of compressing all the relevant Gospel

events into the space of nine hours.

(4) The improbability that the mob, the soldiers, the priests and the judges were up all night, and available for duty at the most unusual hours. All these difficulties disappear with the acceptance of the New

Chronology, which alone fits the facts.

Secondly, it must be borne in mind that historical fact-finding, in the interests of truth, has nothing to say to the Church's Litur- gical Practice. For the latter is based on the practical and pastoral

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.150 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:14:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320 WALKER, CONCERNING THE JAUBERTIAN CHRONOLOGY

requirements of Christian worshippers. The tendency to shorten the days of commemoration of Christ's sufferings is very natural and human, and went to such a pitch, until recently, that in the West the Easter ceremonies followed by the First Mass of Easter were celebrated early on Saturday morning instead of at mid-night. For after all, while we do well to meditate on His sufferings and death in the past, He is reigning in glory all the time. Liturgical dates rarely follow historical dates, and even Easter can only very occasionally happen to coincide with the calendrical date of the Event. We do not know the exact day of Christ's Birth, which some think must have been in April, but the Church decided to commemorate it on an old Roman public holiday, Dec. 25th, and that has many practical advantages. In all cases of this nature the Church is no slave of the literal date, but of the spiritual message.

Lastly, is it so incredible that Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, and the rejector of many artificial restrictions, should anticipate the official Passover by three days?

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.150 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:14:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions