Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-18-2010, 06:20 PM

BAR article by Jonathan Klawans says no, it wasn't.

This is actually an informative article, even if you might disgree with some of the author's assumptions.

Quote:

... several Judaic studies scholars—Jacob Neusner is a leading example—very much doubt that rabbinic texts can be used in historical reconstructions of the time of Jesus. But rabbinic literature is our main source of information about what Jews might have done during their Seder meal in ancient times. For reasons that are not entirely clear, other ancient Jewish sources, such as Josephus and Philo, focus on what Jews did in the Temple when the Passover sacrifice was offered, rather than on what they did afterward, when they actually ate the sacrifice. Again, if we cannot know how Jews celebrated Passover at the time of Jesus, then we have to plead ignorance, and we would therefore be unable to answer our question.

There is something to be said for these skeptical positions, but I am not such a skeptic. I want to operate here under the opposite assumptions: that the Gospels can tell us about the historical Jesus,³ and that rabbinic sources can be used—with caution—to reconstruct what Jews at the time of Jesus might have believed and practiced.⁴ Even so, I do not think the Last Supper was a Passover Seder.

He makes the interesting point that if the last supper were in fact a seder, the trial and execution of Jesus would have happened during the Passover week, and the gospels would surely have used that fact against the Jewish authorities.

maryhelena · 03-19-2010, 02:30 AM

Interesting article. It goes along similar lines to The John, Jesus, and History Project article.

Quote:

The last supper in John is located the day before the Passover, but in the Synoptics it is a Passover meal, which would mean that Jesus’ crucifixion was held on the Passover—a highly unlikely eventuality, even contradicted by the Synoptic reports. A common explanation for the Johannine rendering is that John has placed the last supper on the day of preparation for theological reasons as that was the day the Passover lambs were killed, but that detail is not in John; it is only in Mark (Mk. 14:12). Rather, Mark probably ordered the event as a Passover meal in order to make the Institution of the Eucharist a cultic rite parallel to the Jewish meal of remembrance. Luke even steps up the cultic significance, replacing the contents of the New Covenant (Jesus’ blood, Mk. 14:24) with the container (the cup, Lk. 22:20), as Marxsen has pointed out. John’s presentation of the last supper, however, is far more innocent from a cultic perspective and is thus more likely to be historical.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml

GJohn more likely to be historical? Well, only in the sense that the storyline has more plausibility in regard to a Jewish context. Jesus, as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, is being connected to the slaughtered lamb that, symbolically, saved the Israelites from slavery and death in Egypt. Thus, a Passover Lamb. And, consequently, would need to be sacrificed, crucified, on Nisan 14. This more historically plausible storyline taking precedence over the later cultic storyline of symbolic blood and flesh inauguration of a New Covenant on Nisan 15 - especially so as the New Covenant Last Supper storyline, of Mark, Matthew and Luke, so clearly has compromised the Jewish context with its Nisan 15 crucifixion - and thus has stretched the credibility of this storyline having any historical relevance.

As to dating the gospels - GJohn, with the Nisan 14 crucifixion storyline is easily dated prior to 70 ce - when such a storyline would not raise a ruckus as to its historical plausibility. On the other hand, imagine, prior to 70 ce, the outcry of a storyline of a crucifixion on Nisan 15 that went against Jewish sensibilities regarding the Passover week. After 70 ce, with the temple no more and the old traditions having to be re-interpreted re that temple - then playing around with the details of the Passover observance would more easily get a pass...

Obviously, with an animal sacrifice, the lamb can be killed on Nisan 14 and later that evening, Nisan 15, eaten at the evening Passover meal. With a human sacrifice no literal evening meal is possible - but there could still be a symbolic flesh and blood cultic meal - albeit without the human sacrifice person being present

hence the difficulty for the gospel writers. They wanted their cake and they wanted to eat it as well - all except GJohn - the gospel that has kept some perspective on the crucifixion storyline.

Quote:

Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?

by Jonathan Klawans

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/j....asp#location1

Against the “single” testimony of the synoptics that the Last Supper was a Passover meal stands the lone Gospel of John, which dates the crucifixion to the “day of Preparation for the Passover” (John 19:14). According to John, Jesus died just when the Passover sacrifice was being offered and before the festival began at sundown (see the sidebar to this article). Any last meal—which John does not record—would have taken place the night before, or even earlier than that. But it certainly could not have been a Passover meal, for Jesus died before the holiday had formally begun.

So are we to follow John or the synoptics?5 There are a number of problems with the synoptic account. First, if the Last Supper had been a Seder held on the first night of Passover, then that would mean Jesus’ trial and crucifixion took place during the week-long holiday. If indeed Jewish authorities were at all involved in Jesus’ trial and death, then according to the synoptics those authorities would have engaged in activities—holding trials and carrying out executions—that were either forbidden or certainly unseemly to perform on the holiday. This is not the place to consider whether Jewish authorities were involved in Jesus’ death. Nor is it the place to consider whether such authorities would have been devout practitioners of Jewish law. But this is the place to point out that if ancient Jewish authorities had been involved in something that could possibly be construed as a violation of Jewish law, the Gospels—with their hatred of the Jewish authorities—would probably have made the most of it. The synoptic account stretches credulity, not just because it depicts something unlikely, but because it fails to recognize the unlikely and problematic nature of what it depicts. It is almost as if the synoptic tradition has lost all familiarity with contemporary Jewish practice. And if they have lost familiarity with that, they have probably lost familiarity with reliable historical information as well.

There are, of course, some reasons to doubt John’s account too. He may well have had theological motivations for claiming that Jesus was executed on the day of preparation when the Passover sacrifice was being offered but before Passover began at sundown. John’s timing of events supports the Christian claim that Jesus himself was a sacrifice and that his death heralds a new redemption, just as the Passover offering recalls an old one. Even so, John’s claim that Jesus was killed just before Passover began is more plausible than the synoptics’ claim that Jesus was killed on Passover. And if Jesus wasn’t killed on Passover, but before it (as John claims), then the Last Supper could not in fact have been a Passover Seder.

semiopen · 03-19-2010, 08:53 AM

I'm not sure I agree with everything the link below says but the point that a Jewish capital trial wouldn't be held during Passover is a pretty strong one.

http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishvi...esus_trial.htm

This is stronger than the Crucification was a unique Roman punishment argument.

Toto · 03-26-2010, 04:54 PM

A related article on BAR's Easter Special by Bruce Chilton The Eucharist: Exploring its origins

This article could lead to vertigo. It starts

Quote:

What Jesus was doing at the Last Supper has not been understood for the better part of 2,000 years. The reason for the misunderstanding is that Jesus, a Jewish teacher who was concerned with the sacrificial worship of Israel, has been treated as if he were the deity in a Hellenistic cult.

. . .

Within the Greco-Roman world, Jesus was readily appreciated as a divine figure, after the manner of one of the gods come to visit earth. Hellenistic religion of the first and second centuries was deeply influenced by cults called Mysteries, in which a worshiper would be joined to the death and restoration of a god by means of ritual. Jesus’ Last Supper was naturally compared to initiation into such a Mystery. He was a new kind of Dionysus, historical rather than mythical, who gave himself, flesh and blood, in the meals held in his name. After all, he had said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 26:26–28//Mark 14:22–24//Luke 22:19–20). For many Hellenistic Christians, that could only mean that Jesus referred to himself: Bread and wine were tokens of Jesus that became his body and blood when believers consumed them!

Yea, the true meaning of Jesus' last supper has been hidden until now, when with the aid of Historic Jesus studies, Bruce Chilton has solved the mystery. All facts are reinterpreted to fit the paradigm of Jesus as a Jewish leader, and if there are no facts, critical assumptions are made at will.

Since Jesus as a Jew could not possibly have meant for his fellow Jews to actually consume blood of any kind or his body, he must have said something else. The cleansing of the Temple was motivated by Jesus' belief that people should sacrifice only the product of their own hands, not something bought.

Steven Carr · 03-27-2010, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A related article on BAR's Easter Special by Bruce Chilton The Eucharist: Exploring its origins

This article could lead to vertigo. It starts

Quote:

What Jesus was doing at the Last Supper has not been understood for the better part of 2,000 years. The reason for the misunderstanding is that Jesus, a Jewish teacher who was concerned with the sacrificial worship of Israel, has been treated as if he were the deity in a Hellenistic cult.

. . .

Within the Greco-Roman world, Jesus was readily appreciated as a divine figure, after the manner of one of the gods come to visit earth. Hellenistic religion of the first and second centuries was deeply influenced by cults called Mysteries, in which a worshiper would be joined to the death and restoration of a god by means of ritual. Jesus’ Last Supper was naturally compared to initiation into such a Mystery. He was a new kind of Dionysus, historical rather than mythical, who gave himself, flesh and blood, in the meals held in his name. After all, he had said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 26:26–28//Mark 14:22–24//Luke 22:19–20). For many Hellenistic Christians, that could only mean that Jesus referred to himself: Bread and wine were tokens of Jesus that became his body and blood when believers consumed them!

Yea, the true meaning of Jesus' last supper has been hidden until now, when with the aid of Historic Jesus studies, Bruce Chilton has solved the mystery. All facts are reinterpreted to fit the paradigm of Jesus as a Jewish leader, and if there are no facts, critical assumptions are made at will.

Since Jesus as a Jew could not possibly have meant for his fellow Jews to actually consume blood of any kind or his body, he must have said something else. The cleansing of the Temple was motivated by Jesus' belief that people should sacrifice only the product of their own hands, not something bought.

Bruce Chilton simply demonstrates that there are no standards in New Testament, no methodology.

It is a pseudo-subject. It is junk history.

As somebody trained as a scientist, I am shocked by what I see when I read articles by New Testament scholars.

I did not think a subject could descend so far from academic standards that would be taken for granted in other fields.

maryhelena · 03-27-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Paul never accepted the limitation of the Jamesian group. He placed the Last Supper on the night Jesus was handed over, not Passover (1 Corinthians 11:23). In that way, non-Jewish Christians—who were, Paul’s particular concern—could take part fully in the Lord’s supper. Paul also adopted the Petrine group’s understanding of the blood Jesus referred to at the Last Supper as the blood of the covenant. Quoting Jesus, Paul writes, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around 56 C.E., so it is plain that by that time there were rich and varying understandings of eucharist. Like Luke (22:20), Paul believes the covenant mediated by Jesus is “new,” a departure from old ways.

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-02.asp

Interesting interpretation of Paul here: Paul makes no mention of the Passover storyline of the synoptics.

Is Paul conflating two storylines - the GJohn storyline re the crucifixion on Nisan 14 (prior to Passover) and the synoptic storyline re the blood and flesh, wine and bread, inauguration of the new covenant?

Paul's Lord’s Supper seems to be an event that happened whenever believers came together. – in contrast to a yearly Lord’s supper on Passover. Thereby, removing his Lord’s Supper from a direct connection to a new covenant for Jewish believers related to Passover of Nisan 15.

Paul was opening up the new covenant to include non-Jews. Paul could get support from GJohn. The blood and flesh symbolism in that storyline was already made by Jesus prior to the last supper - and hence had no connection to a new covenant exclusively for Jewish believers. (John 6:53-58)

There looks to be quite a development re the new covenant idea. Firstly, in GJohn no mention at all - the symbolism of the flesh and blood being made prior to Nisan 14. The synoptics have combined the flesh and blood symbolism of GJohn with the Passover inauguration of a new covenant on Nisan 15.. Paul makes no mention of the Passover in 1 Cor.11.23 - his Lord’s Supper is an anytime meal and his new covenant is not exclusively Jewish but open-ended; not being related to the letter of the law but to the Spirit.

(interestingly, Paul seems to also refer to GJohn with his view that Christ is “our Passover Lamb” - thus needing to be sacrificed on Nisan 14 and not as the synoptic storyline would have it on Nisan 15. 1 Cor.5.7, John 1.29,36).

Looks like Paul was aware of the gospel storyline but sought to distance himself from that storyline re ‘sayings’ of Jesus and miracles etc. Well after all, as mythicists would contend, there was no historical Jesus there anyway for Paul to be concerned about! Whatever actual history comprised early Christian beginnings - and that there were Jesus movements prior to Paul, he, himself, admits - Paul is not seeking to look back towards this early history but to move things forward - and with as little historical baggage as he can get away with - or that he thought useful for his own particular mission. The gospel storyline is not so much about a mythological Jesus figure as a mythologizing of early Christian history. Thus, dating Paul needs to take cognizance of this - and not attempt to place him in a time and place that is derived from accepting the mythologized history as actual history. Mythmaking has no need for a strict chronological sequence of events - it is primarily an interpretation not a historical record - and with prophetic interests intertwined with mythology - it’s a mix that can well frustrate the best minds of the day…

(the article seems to be re-cycled - there are comments from as far back as 2008...)

arnoldo · 03-28-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

(interestingly, Paul seems to also refer to GJohn with his view that Christ is “our Passover Lamb” - thus needing to be sacrificed on Nisan 14 and not as the synoptic storyline would have it on Nisan 15. 1 Cor.5.7, John 1.29,36).

I wasn't aware that the synoptics stated the Christ was sacrificed on Nisan 15. The following source seems to imply that in Mark 14:2 there may be an issue of translation to determine the correct chronological order of this alleged event.

Quote:

In Mark 14:12, it is written, " And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover [ the Pesach lamb]..." The word translated as first is the Greek word protos, "before, earlier, and preceding." Because there was a temple (Beit HaMikadash) in Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) in the days of Yeshua, the First Seder would be on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the Second Seder on the fifteenth. The Seder could be held on either night. Yeshua had His Passover (Pesach) Seder by midnight on the fourteenth of Nisan (remember that the fourteenth of Nisan begins at sundown, which is roughly six hours prior to midnight), and was crucified the next afternoon at 3:00 p.m., which is still the fourteenth of Nisan).

. . . To further prove this, in John (Yochanan)18:28 when Yeshua was brought before Pilate, Caiphas the high priest (Cohen HaGadol) wouldn't enter the judgment hall of the Gentile ruler because he would be defiled and couldn't eat the Passover lamb. . .

The Seven Festivals of the Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk)

maryhelena · 03-28-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

(interestingly, Paul seems to also refer to GJohn with his view that Christ is “our Passover Lamb” - thus needing to be sacrificed on Nisan 14 and not as the synoptic storyline would have it on Nisan 15. 1 Cor.5.7, John 1.29,36).

I wasn't aware that the synoptics stated the Christ was sacrificed on Nisan 15. The following source seems to imply that in Mark 14:2 there may be an issue of translation to determine the correct chronological order of this alleged event.

Quote:

In Mark 14:12, it is written, " And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover [ the Pesach lamb]..." The word translated as first is the Greek word protos, "before, earlier, and preceding." Because there was a temple (Beit HaMikadash) in Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) in the days of Yeshua, the First Seder would be on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the Second Seder on the fifteenth. The Seder could be held on either night. Yeshua had His Passover (Pesach) Seder by midnight on the fourteenth of Nisan (remember that the fourteenth of Nisan begins at sundown, which is roughly six hours prior to midnight), and was crucified the next afternoon at 3:00 p.m., which is still the fourteenth of Nisan).

. . . To further prove this, in John (Yochanan)18:28 when Yeshua was brought before Pilate, Caiphas the high priest (Cohen HaGadol) wouldn't enter the judgment hall of the Gentile ruler because he would be defiled and couldn't eat the Passover lamb. . .

The Seven Festivals of the Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

Analysis of the Gospels

John's Gospel implies that at the time of the trial the Jewish leaders had not yet eaten the Passover meal[Jn. 18:28] and explicitly states just prior to his sentencing "Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour."[Jn. 19:14] This places the crucifixion on Nisan 14, since the law mandated the lamb had to be sacrificed between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm and eaten before midnight on Nisan 14.[44][45][46] This understanding fits well with Old Testament typology, in which Jesus entered Jerusalem to identify himself as the Paschal lamb on Nisan 10[Jn. Ex.] was crucified and died at 3:00 in the afternoon of Nisan 14, at the same time the High Priest would have sacrificed the Paschal lamb,[1 Cor. 5:7] [cf. Isa. 53:7-9] and rose before dawn the morning of Nisan 16, as a type of offering of the First Fruits.[1 Cor. 15:23] [cf. Lev. 23:9-14]

The chronology presented by John has been viewed as problematic in reconciling with the Synoptic passages and the tradition in that the Last Supper was a Passover meal,[47] placing the crucifixion instead on Nisan 15. However, the apparent contradiction may be resolved by postulating differences in how post-exilic Jews reckoned time.[48] For Jesus and his disciples, the Passover could have begun at dawn Thursday, while for traditional Jews (following Leviticus 23:5), it would not have begun until dusk that same day.[49][50] Another potential solution is that Jesus chose to celebrate the Passover meal a day early with his disciples.[Mt. 26:18] [Lk. 22:15] [51][52]
Thursday[53][54] or Wednesday[55] crucifixion scenarios have also been suggested. These scenarios are based upon Jesus's prophecy that he was to be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). Also, these scenarios take into account that not all Sabbaths were on Saturday. Some, like Passover, were on set days of the month. They were rarely on Saturday but they still were still considered Sabbath days. These scenarios propose that the Sabbath after Jesus was crucified was not Saturday, but the two day Sabbath of the day of Preparation and the day of Passover. Then He, Jesus, rose from the dead three days and three nights later on the first day of the week, Sunday. Other dates are also suggested. Author Geza Vermes argue for a date of April 7, 30 AD and E.P Sanders also for a date about 30 AD.[56][57]

(my bolding)

So, basically, there is a problem re the account in the synoptic storyline and the GJohn storyline. Thus, one can either try one of the various suggestions re harmonizing the two accounts - or one can view the different accounts as a developing storyline re the crucifixion. In which case the GJohn storyline has the advantage of being historically more plausible. Which would then suggest that the synoptic account is dealing with cultic concerns rather than historical plausibility.

arnoldo · 03-29-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I wasn't aware that the synoptics stated the Christ was sacrificed on Nisan 15. The following source seems to imply that in Mark 14:2 there may be an issue of translation to determine the correct chronological order of this alleged event.

Quote:

Wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

Analysis of the Gospels

John's Gospel implies that at the time of the trial the Jewish leaders had not yet eaten the Passover meal[Jn. 18:28] and explicitly states just prior to his sentencing "Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour."[Jn. 19:14] This places the crucifixion on Nisan 14, since the law mandated the lamb had to be sacrificed between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm and eaten before midnight on Nisan 14.[44][45][46] . . .

(my bolding)

So, basically, there is a problem re the account in the synoptic storyline and the GJohn storyline. Thus, one can either try one of the various suggestions re harmonizing the two accounts - or one can view the different accounts as a developing storyline re the crucifixion. In which case the GJohn storyline has the advantage of being historically more plausible. Which would then suggest that the synoptic account is dealing with cultic concerns rather than historical plausibility.

(my blue bolding)
It's interesting to consider the GJohn to be more historically accurate than the synoptics considering it's usually dated to be the last gospel written. As far as the wiki claim that the passover lamb had to be killed on Nissan 14 the sources listed for this claim ( [44][45][46] . . .) didn't substantiate this claim, unless I'm mistaken and overlooked something.

maryhelena · 03-29-2010, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

(my bolding)

So, basically, there is a problem re the account in the synoptic storyline and the GJohn storyline. Thus, one can either try one of the various suggestions re harmonizing the two accounts - or one can view the different accounts as a developing storyline re the crucifixion. In which case the GJohn storyline has the advantage of being historically more plausible. Which would then suggest that the synoptic account is dealing with cultic concerns rather than historical plausibility.

(my blue bolding)
It's interesting to consider the GJohn to be more historically accurate than the synoptics considering it's usually dated to be the last gospel written. As far as the wiki claim that the passover lamb had to be killed on Nissan 14 the sources listed for this claim ( [44][45][46] . . .) didn't substantiate this claim, unless I'm mistaken and overlooked something.

Reference #44 ^ Philo. "De Specialibus Legibus 2.145".

Quote:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book28.html

THE FOURTH FESTIVAL

XXVII. (145) And after the feast of the new moon comes the fourth festival, that of the passover, which the Hebrews call pascha, on which the whole people offer sacrifice, beginning at noonday and continuing till evening. (146) And this festival is instituted in remembrance of, and as giving thanks for, their great migration which they made from Egypt, with many myriads of people, in accordance with the commands of God given to them; leaving then, as it seems, a country full of all inhumanity and practising every kind of inhospitality, and (what was worst of all) giving the honour due to God to brute beasts; and, therefore, they sacrificed at that time themselves out of their exceeding joy, without waiting for priests. And what was then done the law enjoined to be repeated once every year, as a memorial of the gratitude due for their deliverance. These things are thus related in accordance with the ancient historic accounts. (147) But those who are in the habit of turning plain stories into allegory, argue that the passover figuratively represents the purification of the soul; for they say that the lover of wisdom is never practising anything else except a passing over from the body and the passions. (148) And each house is at that time invested with the character and dignity of a temple, the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who has provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions. And those who are to share in the feast come together not as they do to other entertainments, to gratify their bellies with wine and meat, but to fulfil their hereditary custom with prayer and songs of praise. (149) And this universal sacrifice of the whole people is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month, which consists of two periods of seven, in order that nothing which is accounted worthy of honour may be separated from the number seven. But this number is the beginning of brilliancy and dignity to everything.

Reference #45

^ Josephus. The War of the Jews 6.9.3

I would have thought this link incidental - why reference Masada and the slaughter/suicide of Nisan 15…

Reference #46

^ Mishnah, Pesahim 5.1.

This page has a link to the Wikipedia Passover page.

Quote:

Passover

Origins of the festival

See also: The Exodus

Passover is a biblically mandated holiday, indicating that it was already old and traditional by the time of the redaction of the Pentateuch:

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD'S Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. (Leviticus 23:5)

The biblical regulations for the observance of the festival require that all leavening be disposed of before the beginning of the 15th of Nisan.[8] An unblemished lamb or goat is to be set apart on Nisan 10,[9] and slaughtered on Nisan 14 "between the two evenings",[10] a phrase which is, however, not defined. It is then to be eaten "that night", Nisan 15,[11] roasted, without the removal of its internal organs[12] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.[11] Nothing of the sacrifice on which the sun rises may be eaten, but must be burned.[13] The sacrifices may only be performed in Jerusalem.[14]

The biblical regulations pertaining to the original Passover also include how the meal is to be eaten: "with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover" (Exodus 12:11).

Some of these details can be corroborated, and to some extent amplified, in extrabiblical sources. The removal (or "sealing up") of the leaven is referred to the Elephantine papyri, an Aramaic papyrus from 5th century BCE Elephantine in Egypt.[15] The slaughter of the lambs on the 14th is mentioned in The Book of Jubilees, a Jewish work of the Ptolemaic period, and by the Herodian-era writers Josephus and Philo. These sources also indicate that "between the two evenings" was taken to mean the afternoon.[16]Jubilees states the sacrifice was eaten that night,[17] and together with Josephus states that nothing of the sacrifice was allowed to remain until morning.[18] Philo states that the banquet included hymns and prayers.[19]

The Biblical commandments concerning the Passover (and the Feast of Unleavened Bread) stress the importance of remembering:
And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt; and thou shalt observe and do these statutes." (Deuteronomy 16:12)

Exodus 12:14 commands, in reference to God's sparing of the firstborn from the Tenth Plague:

And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Exodus 13:3 repeats the command to remember:

Remember this day, in which you came out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength the hand of the LORD brought you out from this place.

(my bolding)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2010, 08:53 AM	#3
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	I'm not sure I agree with everything the link below says but the point that a Jewish capital trial wouldn't be held during Passover is a pretty strong one. http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishvi...esus_trial.htm This is stronger than the Crucification was a unique Roman punishment argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.