Yet another Look at the Passion ChronologyAuthor(s): Norman WalkerSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 6, Fasc. 4 (Nov., 1963), pp. 286-289Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560133 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 08:57

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 62.122.79.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:57:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

YET ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PASSION CHRONOLOGY

BY

NORMAN WALKER, The Vicarage 300 Chessington Road

West Ewell, Surrey, England.

Two recent contributions to the discussion of the Passion Chronology, the one by J. BLINZLER 1) on the relevance of the Mishnic Penal Code to the Trial of Jesus, and the other by K. G. KUHN 2) on the Essene Calendar, have prompted the present writer to raise doubts, not indeed as to the matters of fact, so ably set forth, but as to certain inferences drawn therefrom.

According to BLINZLER the penal regulations found in the Mishna betray a humanitarian 3) attitude as compared with those of the OT, to which alone the Sadducees are alleged to have adher- ed 4), the change of Code being ascribed to second century Pharisaic influence 5). The earlier and harsher Sadducean regulations, in force during the first half of the first century AD, are said to have been abrogated in 66 AD, with the First Jewish Revolt 6). Hence it is argued that the second century Mishnic regulation, that the death sentence must not be passed on the same day as the trial 7), was not in force at the time of the trial of Jesus in 30 AD 8), and hence that the Sanhedrin then, in accordance with the OT, was free to carry out the sentencing and execution of the accused immediately after the trial, as indeed it was able to do in the case of Stephen 9). But here two facts should be borne in mind, (a) that although the Sadducees in Roman-Herodian times had a numerical majority in the Sanhedrin and official posts, the Pharisees held a

1) BLINZLER, ZNW. 52 (1961) pp. 54-64. 2) KUHN, ZNW. 52 (I96I) pp. 65-72. 3) BLINZLER, op. cit., p. 55. 4) Ibid., p. 59. 5) Ibid., p. 58. 6) Ibid., p. 64. 7) Sanh. IV. I. 8) BLINZLER, op. cit., pp. 58-61. 9) Ibid., p. 56.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:57:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PASSION CHRONOLOGY

greater sway over the people, so that occasionally the Sanhedrin was obliged to follow the Pharisaic lead; (b) that at the trial of Jesus at least two members of the Sanhedrin were in tacit sympathy with the Accused, to wit, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, and that this circumstance, coupled with the wide popularity of the Accused, caused the Sanhedrin to act with great circumspection, "for they feared the people". With the cunning of "Uriah Heep" 1) they brought the accused before Pilate on a charge of treason, having humbly pleaded that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death. In a sense this was true as regards the charge of treason, but hardly as regards the charge of blasphemy, for which they had the support of "their law" in the OT. Thus Pilate was cornered, and, much as he believed Jesus to be innocent, he was driven by the tumult made and by the question of his loyalty to Caesar, to "let Him be crucified". In the case of Stephen matters were very different, for the accused was no national figure, and the Sanhedrin had no need or reason to refer the case to Pilate. Instead they exercised their lawful right to stone the offender. The whole affair was quickly over, and even if Pilate did know about it, he had no cause to "fear a tumult".

But Josephus, ever since his surrender to the Romans, had adopted a policy of appeasing them, and even courting their favour, as he himself admits. It is not surprising, therefore, that he went out of his way to indicate how much better 2) were the postwar Pharisaic leaders of the Jews than their predecessors, the Sadducees, now in disgrace. He speaks of the mitigation of punishments, on humanitarian grounds, by the more considerate Pharisees. Never- theless, when, later, their penal regulations were written down in the Mishna, it became evident that this so-called "mitigation" was a mis-nomer, and that the real reason for the changes was the urgent need of privacy, not to say secrecy, in the execution of the death penalty. Thus, public burning with fire was replaced by choking with molten lead 3), stoning with missiles by smothering in a grave with a stone slab 4), or alternatively by strangling 5). Publicity was avoided, lest the Roman authorities should get to know, and intervene.

1) Character in DICKENS, David Copperfield, chap. 39, illustrating mock humility to gain an end.

2) BLINZLER, Op. cit., p. 59. 3) Sanh. VII, 2a, XI. I. 4) Sanh. VI. 4. 5) Sanh. XI. 6.

287

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:57:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NORMAN WALKER

Then as regards the use of the Jubilees Calendar by Jesus, and also by the Qumran and Essene sectaries, KUHN appears to make the proof of it dependant on the citing of the details of the inter- calation 1), by which it was aligned with the Solar Calendar. But surely the same argument would hold good of the Official Jewish Calendar, the existence and use of which is not to be denied. Naturally, there must have been insertion of a second Adar from time to time, yet we have no means of knowing how this was done. All we know is that the Babylonians did make this insertion, and that it was from them that the post-exilic Jewish Calendar was borrowed 2).

It seems to the present writer that there is no valid objection to the New Passion Chronology, which makes Jesus really eat the Passover three days in advance of the otticial Jerusalem date. Jesus had a strong desire to eat the Passover before He suffered, and there is no warrant for denying that He did so.

Moreover, the Evangelists record, in all, five appearances of Jesus in court, and all attempts to reduce them to one involve doubts as to the genuineness of the written records. Indeed certain commentators venture to question the motives of the authors. But this surfeit of criticism is, in the present writer's view, wholly unnecessary. The form of the Gospel as preached by Peter, and later committed to writing by Mark, was necessarily shorter than Matthew's diary-account of the same "records" (Xoyla). Luke took pains by careful enquiry to fill up some of the gaps, and John, out of his own reminiscences, did likewise. But the full Gospel story must be inclusive of all four accounts, not the Highest Common Factor but the Least Common Multiple. Especially is this true of the Passion Story.

We are therefore given five distinct appearances of Jesus in court, together with four special episodes, namely, Peter's denial, Judas's repentance, Pilate's reconciliation to Herod, and Pilate's wife's warning.

Now if, using moder day-reckoning from mid-night to mid-night, we call the day of the week on which Jesus was betrayed X (since nowhere does Scripture enlighten us as to which day), then the Denial took place early before sunrise on X + I, Sanhedrin II in

1) KUHN, op. cit., p. 73. 2) K. MARTI in Encyc. Bib. IV (I907), col. 5367.

288

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:57:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PASSION CHRONOLOGY

The details may be tabulated thus:

Mt. Mk. Lk. Jn. Sanhedrin I xxvi 57-68 xiv 53-62 xxii 54, xviii I3-I4

63-65

Peter's Denial xxvi 69-75 xiv 63-72 xxii 54-62 xviii I5-I8 25-27

Sanhedrin II xxvii I-2 xv I xxii 66-71 xviii I9-24

Judas 's Remorse xxvii 3-10

Pilate I xxvii 11-14 xv 2-5 xxiii I-6 xviii 28-40

Herod and Pilate-Herod xxiii 7-I2 Reconciliation

Pilate's Wife's Warning xxvii I9

Pilate II xxvii 17-26 xv 8-15 xxiii 13-25 xix 1-i6

the early morning daylight of X + I, after which the chief-priests were back in the Temple meeting remorseful Judas, and Jesus had been taken to Pilate's house. Hence it is most unlikely that Jesus stood before Pilate that same day, but rather on the next morning, X + 2. Then, because Pilate I was followed by an appearance before Herod and return to Pilate's house, and the rest of that day devoted, one can imagine, to the reconciliation of Governor and Tetrarch, Pilate II must have been on X + 3, which would, also allow for Pilate's wife's dream. But since it is universally agreed that the Crucifixion occurred on a Friday, the Last Supper and Arrest must have taken place on a Tuesday, as the New Passion

Chronology affirms 1).

1) A. JAUBERT, La date de la Cene (Paris I957).

289

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:57:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions