Commenting
on the difference between the dating of the crucifixion in the Synoptics and
John, Michael LeFebvre, a pastor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church (so
someone who would hold to the inerrancy of the autographia), wrote the
following about the problematic nature of being too quick to engage in harmonisation:
Under the conventions of modern historical
narrative, these differences in date and time seem "contradictory,"
as though someone got their facts wrong. Many attempts have been made to
"reconcile" the chronology of the Synoptics and that of John.
However, the best explanation is found not by resolving or smoothing over these
differences but by listening to them. These crucifixion accounts were not so
poorly compiled as to overlook such obvious timing differences. These divergent
timelines give a harmonious witness that Jesus is our Passover Lamb, but they
do so by differently aligning the crucifixion events with their shadows in the
Jewish Passover rituals.
Notably, the Synoptics, which describe the
Last Supper as a Passover meal, also describe that meal as the setting for the
Eucharist (Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:15-20). John has many other things
to say about Jesus' final meal with his disciples, but he does not include the
Eucharist in his description. The Synoptics align Jesus' Last Supper with the
Passover meal because it is this meal and its message of peace with God through
sacrifice that provides the basis for the New Testament Communion table. In the
Eucharist, Christians celebrate our peace with God through the final Passover
Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8). The crucifixion timeline in the Synoptic Gospels shows us
that Jesus is the Passover Lamb by aligning the Communion table with the
Passover meal.
John also shows us that Jesus is our Passover
Lamb, but he does so by a different alignment of events. In John's narrative,
the Last Supper takes place on the night "before the Feast of
Passover" (Jn 13:1), and he says nothing about the institution of the
Eucharist at that dinner. Instead, John dates the crucifixion to the afternoon before the Passover meal, at that time
when the people were bringing their lambs for slaughter, "Now it was the
day of Preparation of the Passover," John writes, "It was the sixth
hour . . . So [Pilate] delivered him over to them to be crucified" (Jn
19:14-16). The "day of Preparation of the Passover" refers to the
daylight hours when preparations were being made for the Passover meal that
night. Jon shows that Jesus is our Passover Lamb by aligning his crucifixion
with the time when lambs were being gathered for the festival slaughter. Thus,
all four Gospel authors relate the timing of the crucifixion to Passover, but
they do so using different chronological scenarios.
These details teach us about the nature of
Christ's crucifixion. They also open a window into a different world of calendars
than our own. The Gospel writers introduce Passover into their narratives
almost like one of the characters of the story, whose points of coming and
going can be interpreted differently depending on the narrated perspective
taken on the event. A modern historian would not have that latitude, because we
view calendars (and time) differently in the present day. A contemporary
historian would treat a festival date like Passover as a fixed, immovable part
of the story's framework.
For a comparison, a historian of American
independence would be expected to identify Tuesday, July 2, 1776, as the date
Congress declared independence from Great Britain. Even though Americans
celebrate Independence Day on the Fourth of July each year, an accurate
historian would report that independence was enacted two days prior. (July 4th
was not the date of American independence but the date when that previously
adopted Declaration of Independence
was finally signed and published.) But a historian operating by ancient conventions
might ascribe the independence event to its celebration date (July 4) without
violating the integrity of his report by doing so. The Gospel crucifixion
narratives illustrate this ancient way of using dates in historical narratives.
John ascribes the crucifixion of Jesus to Passover afternoon, while the
Synoptics date the same event to the day after Passover.
Granting an author latitude in how he or she
represents chronology grates on our modern notions of a trustworthy report. In
fact, an entire genre in biblical studies called Gospel harmonies attempts to
resolve such chronological (and other) differences between the Gospels. A
"Gospel harmony" may help assuage one's discomfort with those
differences that, if found in a modern work of history, would be problematic.
But those "harmonies" come at a cost. It is often necessary to strain
the narratives or to add extra assumptions into them in order to bring them
into greater "agreement." "O that most excellent Harmony,"
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing wrote, "which can only reconcile two
contradictory reports, both stemming from the evangelists, by inventing a third
report, not a syllable of which is to be found in any individual evanagelist!"
Harmonization efforts have generally been
regarded as unpersuasive. We should not base the trustworthiness of the Gospels
on our ability to harmonize, for example, their different chronologies for the
crucifixion. It is better to face the differences and consider why the authors
used their descriptive latitude to record events as they did. The journalistic
way we expect timestamps to function today is not a reliable standard by which
to assess timestamps in the Bible. Furthermore, imposing anachronistic
expectations about calendars cold hinder our full appreciation of a biblical
author's reason for drawing out particular date alignments. (Michael LeFebvre, The Liturgy of Creation: Understanding
Calendars in Old Testament Context [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic,
2019], 3-5)
