A Better Harmonization of Matthew's Double Donkeys

A popular contradiction alleged between the Gospel accounts is the number of donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem during the triumphal entry. Mark and Luke both mention a "colt" and say that Jesus sat on "it". Matthew, however, mentions the colt and its mother and ambiguously says that Jesus sat on "them". Thus, it is argued that Matthew has Jesus sitting on both of these animals while riding into Jerusalem. As Bart Ehrman says: 

"In Matthew, Jesus' disciples procure two animals for him, a donkey and a colt; they spread their garments over the two of them, and Jesus rode into town straddling them both (Matthew 21:7). It's an odd image, but Matthew made Jesus fulfill the prophecy of Scripture quite literally." (Jesus Interrupted, p. 50)

Here's Matthew 21:6-7 (NASB): [1]
"The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their cloaks on them; and He sat on them."

What does "on them" mean?

When Matthew says that Jesus sat "on them" the context yields only two plural antecedents to which Matthew might be referring: the donkeys or the cloaks (technically, it could be referring to the disciples, but this option will be dismissed without further comment). If "them" means the donkeys, it must further be adjudicated whether Matthew intends to say that Jesus is straddling the donkeys or whether a simpler interpretation is correct. I will briefly summarize these interpretations.

The "cloaks" interpretation

According to this interpretation, when Matthew says that Jesus sat "on them" he is referring to the cloaks—the disciples put the cloaks on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on the cloaks. While this harmonization is very popular, I don't think it is as convincing as many apologists assert. For one thing, the phrase "on them" is used just a few words earlier to refer to the donkeys. Since Matthew does not specify anything different, this offers some support for "them" referring to the donkeys, albeit not very much. The more convincing, though also not conclusive, argument against this reading comes when we compare Mark's account with Matthew's.

Mark 11.6-7:
"And they told them just as Jesus had said, and they gave them permission. They brought the colt to Jesus and put their cloaks on it; and He sat on it."
Matthew 21.6-7:
"The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their cloaks on them; and He sat on them."

In Mark, the antecedent of it is the colt, even though Mark also has plural cloaks. In Matthew, the sentence is structured the same way, so it's most plausible to take them as having the same antecedent—namely, the donkeys. It's unlikely that Matthew would perfectly parallel Mark's account and switch out the singular pronoun for the plural in every case but mean something entirely different at the end.

A worse objection to the "cloaks" harmonization is the one defended by Bart Ehrman here. [2] Ehrman argues that since the cloaks were spread over both animals, sitting on the cloaks would still entail sitting on both donkeys. But sitting on "the cloaks" doesn't mean sitting on all of the cloaks. That can only be exegeted via a very uncharitable hermeneutic. As long as Jesus sat on some of the cloaks, it could be correctly said that he sat "on them".

While these arguments aren't conclusive, they provide reason to be skeptical of this interpretation. I think it's still a marginally better interpretation than saying that Jesus was straddling two donkeys, but a better harmonization would be preferred.

The "unit" interpretation

According to this interpretation, "on them" does refer to the donkeys, but it doesn't mean Jesus was straddling both of them. Rather, Matthew refers to the donkeys as a unit on which Jesus sat, but he only needs to have sat on one of them. Steve Hays references Donald Hagner's commentary, saying that even if "them" refers to the donkeys,

"it hardly means that the evangelist alleges that Jesus actually sat upon both animals at once (!) or even in succession. Instead it means that here the two animals, which were kept so closely together, are conceptually regarded as a single, inseparable unit,” D. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (Nelson 1995), 595

D. A. Carson gives this as a secondary harmonization, preferring the cloaks harmonization instead. (The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew) To see the plausibility of such a grammatical construction, we need only consider an English example. One might say, of a room with multiple chairs packed closely together, "The chairs were very comfortable. I sat on them," and yet only have sat on one chair. The speaker is referring to the chairs as a unit, and it would be absurd to think he straddled all of them. Even if the grammar might initially incline us towards the notion, common sense rules it out, leading us to assume he only sat on one chair. It is not difficult to think of other examples of this sort of grammatical construction.

I contend that this is the best harmonization of the texts. The suggestion that Matthew has Jesus balancing on two animals of different heights, while not impossible, is rather unlikely from the start. Matthew had access to Mark when he wrote this passage, as the textual similarities make clear, so a straddling Jesus would be a deliberate correction of Mark's narrative. Thus, if Matthew meant something so counterintuitive, why wasn't he clearer? It would be easy to say something akin to "he sat on both of them" if that was what he wanted to communicate. It's highly unlikely such a strange event would be inserted so ambiguously and subtly.

Some further points are in order about why Matthew wrote his account this way. We'll start with an examination of the prophecy quoted in verse 5.

Did Matthew misunderstand Zechariah's parallelism?

Those who allege that Matthew has Jesus riding two donkeys sometimes allege that Matthew was trying to make Jesus fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah 9.9, which he quotes in verse 5. Zechariah 9.9 (NASB) says:

"Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
    Shout in triumph, daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
    He is righteous and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
    Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

This verse is an example of Hebrew synonymous parallelism—the first line expresses an idea, and the second line amplifies it or repeats it with slight variations. If this prophecy inspired Matthew to write Jesus riding two donkeys, it would require him to have misunderstood the parallelism. But this is highly unlikely. Consider the text that Matthew cites:

"Say to the daughter of Zion,
'Behold your King is coming to you,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'"

Note that Matthew omits lines 2 and 4 from Zechariah 9.9. These both echo the lines before them, indicating that Matthew is quite familiar with this Hebrew convention. Further, as Jonathan McLatchie notes, commenting on Matthew 8.16-17, 

"Verse 17 quotes from Isaiah 53:4. It is of note that Matthew does not here quote from the Septuagint, which reads, “He himself bore our sins and was pained because of them.” Matthew’s quotation does not even match the Aramaic Targum, which reads, “Then for our sins he will pray and our iniquities will be forgiven because of him.” Instead, Matthew translates the Hebrew quite literally, highlighting how it is fulfilled in Jesus performing miracles of healing. Matthew’s acquaintance with Hebrew thus make it quite unlikely that he would so grossly misunderstand the parallelism in Zechariah." [3]

A further strike against the theory that Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah is that the Hebrew text of Zechariah, which Matthew was translating from, uses the word for a male donkey. In Matthew's narrative, the second donkey is a female donkey (apparently called a "jenny"). Matthew's familiarity with Hebrew and the lack of a direct correspondence between Zechariah 9 and Matthew 21 thus make it unlikely that Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah.

Why does Matthew mention two donkeys?

This leaves the question of why Matthew bothered mentioning the female donkey in the first place. It could be to show that the colt was truly unridden, as Robert Gundry suggests. [4] Gundry also suggests that the donkeys are meant to be viewed as a "wide throne". This would explain why Matthew uses a plural pronoun even though he's only referring to one donkey—he wants the readers to envision the donkeys, the throne, as a singular unit upon which Jesus sat. Others have argued that sitting on a throne of two donkeys emphasizes both Jesus' divinity and his humility. For an interesting treatment of these options, I would recommend this video from InspiringPhilosophy. He defends the "cloaks" harmonization but has solid research nonetheless.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the arguments against the "cloaks" harmonization have been shown to have weight, if not being ultimately decisive. Matthew's phrase "on them" is best interpreted as referring to the donkeys. However, this need not mean that Matthew intended his readers to envision Jesus straddling both animals, as the donkeys are regarded as a single unit: a garment-spread throne for Jesus. Thus, saying Jesus sat "on them" can still be correct, even if he only sat on the colt. While some might object that this is grammatically counterintuitive, it is less counterintuitive than the notion that Jesus was straddling both of the donkeys. The idea that Matthew didn't understand the Hebrew parallelism in Zechariah has also been shown to be unlikely, given Matthew's competency with the Hebrew text and his omission of the other parallel cola from the verse he's citing. Therefore, Matthew's account is not in tension with Mark's.

Notes and References

[1] The NASB translates the final "them" in this quotation as "the cloaks", in keeping with the proposed harmonization that "them" does in fact refer to the cloaks. To better illustrate where the ambiguity lies, I have supplied the literal translation of the Greek text.

[2] See here for Dr. Jonathan McLatchie's response to Bart Ehrman's remarks. Although McLatchie defends the "cloaks" harmonization, his comments are helpful.

[3] ibid. 

[4] Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed, W.B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Don't Be Intimidated by Michael Alter's Book on the Resurrection

In 2015, Jewish autodidact Michael J. Alter published a 900+ page "scholarly" critique of the resurrection. Alter explains that the book was the result of many years of research on Jesus' resurrection, sparked by a challenge from a unitarian to investigate the matter. It cites hundreds if not thousands of sources and takes a very skeptical stance on the resurrection. It has been met with glowing reviews, even from Christians, asserting that the book represents the definitive critique of the resurrection. The back cover claims that it "refutes Jesus' purported physical, bodily resurrection". From the size, scope, and scholarly veneer of the text, one might reasonably assume that it succeeds in its task, or at least presents a strong case against the foundation of the Christian faith. In this post, I will argue that this is not the case. I won't offer a full critique of Alter's text but rather a discussion of some of the consistent problems that plague the book. I will also provide a few examples of bewildering takes and the ease with which they can be refuted.

Full disclosure: I have only read half of the book, but the consistency of the terrible argumentation has led me to doubt that the second half of the book suddenly delivers the promised refutation of Jesus' resurrection. I may continue to read it in the future, at which point I may write a follow-up post or add some material in the comments section here.

And of course, I mean no disrespect toward Alter as a person. From what I've seen, he seems like a nice individual. Nevertheless, his work is quite poor, and needs to be called out as such.

Some Preliminary Remarks

The main portion of the book is structured around 113 "issues", each dealing with a specific aspect of Jesus' crucifixion, burial, resurrection, or appearances that Alter deems suspect. Each of these issues is divided into various "contradictions" and "speculations". For example, Issue 2, "The Last Supper as a Passover Meal" contains two contradictions and thirteen speculations, numbered continuously from the beginning of the text. In total, 120 contradictions are asserted. This immediately encourages a healthy skepticism that Alter was able to identify this many disagreements between four versions of just a few chapters of text. This skepticism is confirmed, in fact, upon closer inspection of the contradictions, but that will be discussed later.

My first complaint is the lack of proper editing. Many sentences are worded improperly, containing such lackluster phrasing as, for example, three consecutive synonyms, and sounding more like a grade school paper unimaginatively meeting rhetorical requirements than the work of a competent scholar. While this is not a problem for the quality of the arguments, it does make it harder to take the text seriously.

Throughout the book, Alter relies on unreasonable standards of historiography. He frequently remarks that we don't have "incontrovertible evidentiary proof", or something similar, for a specific proposal, and chalks up any apologetic response to his arguments as "mere speculation", ignoring the difference between blind speculation and plausible conjecture. Furthermore, he gives too much weight to obsolete objections from many decades ago that don't hold up to any scrutiny, and have thus been dropped from modern discourse, such as the claim that Jerusalem lacked palm trees (see here). Similar examples will be given later.

I don't mean to imply that the book is without merit, as there are reasonable objections presented that need to be thoughtfully considered. The value of the book will be discussed near the end of this post. Before that, there are three categories of argumentation of which I want to provide examples: terrible takes, arguments that sound convincing to the casual reader but are easy to refute, and robust arguments that are more compelling than the others, even if they aren't ultimately successful.

Example: Terrible Takes

Many, many of these "terrible takes" can be found throughout the book. I don't want to waste time on the numerous small issues, like when Alter calls William Lane Craig a "fundamentalist". Rather, I want to highlight some larger "contradictions" or "speculations" proposed by Alter that should convince no one. 

For example, in discussion of the Johannine burial account, Alter comments, "Perhaps the author of John wrote part or all of his burial account based on Gamaliel, that is, a copycat attempting one upmanship. The similarities are striking: ..." The similarities (listed in Table 23) are as follows: both Jesus and Gamaliel were "A Jewish leader", "A rabbi (teacher)", buried with 100 (per the KJV, Alter's perplexing translation choice) and 86 pounds of spices, respectively, and they "died during a time under Roman rule." This is a ridiculous parallelism. We have four broad parallels, all of which are already plausible in burial accounts. And the problem is compounded when we note that Jesus being a Jewish "leader", a rabbi, and dying under Roman rule can be established historically on independent grounds. Thus, the only relevant similarity is that both individuals were buried with spices (a common practice), and the amounts of spices don't line up. To claim that this is sufficient evidence to show literary dependence between the accounts is absurd.

Another example from Alter's discussion of the burial accounts is where he suggests that Luke and Acts might have different authors. The following excerpt is found in Contradiction #42. 

"The burial narrative of the writer of the Gospel of Luke is assumed also to be the author of Acts [sic], yet he records conflicting accounts. Luke 23:52-53 declares that Joseph alone buried Jesus: 'This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.'... 

"To the contrary, Acts 13:29 records the word they (plural), referring to those who had culpability, who had participated in Jesus' guilty verdict and execution and who had also assisted in his burial: 'And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.' In his preface, Luke claims to have investigated all the sources of his day. Yet the narrative in Acts contradicts Luke. How then could these works be by the same person?"

Where does Luke say that only Joseph of Arimathea took place in the burial? He doesn't. It's as simple as that. The Gospel of John records that Nicodemus helped, and there may have been others. Reading contradictions into the text where there are none is a frequent tendency throughout the book.

But more can be said. Let's look at the context in Acts 13.27-29: "For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the declarations of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him. And though they found no grounds for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. When they had carried out everything that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb."

If we adopt Alter's hyper-literalism, we must conclude that Luke thinks everyone who lives in Jerusalem participated in the burial of Jesus, as well as in removing him from the cross. More likely, Luke is probably using the law of agency, and referring to "those who live in Jerusalem", specifically the Jews who wanted to crucify Jesus, as the group responsible for everything. Thus, everything accomplished by them or through their agency, such as the burial of Jesus, is attributed to them. The only way you get a contradiction here is to employ a ridiculous hermeneutic.

By employing this hermeneutic, Alter ends up suggesting that Luke and Acts may have different authors, which is extremely unlikely. The radical skepticism required to assert that two volumes with the same writing style, addressed to the same person, with the second referring to the first as "the first volume" and continuing its story, were written by different authors, would render unknowable most of ancient history.

I wish I could say that these strange takes were the exception, but unfortunately, they are extremely prevalent throughout the book. A good editor could have removed them and made the book far shorter than it is now.

Example: Sounds Convincing but Doesn't Hold Up

The next category of objections in Alter's book are those that sound convincing when first reading them but quickly unravel under minimal scrutiny. This is often due to misrepresenting or cherry-picking different Bible verses. It serves as a reminder that whenever anyone, Christian or not, cites source material, it is always worth looking it up. It's easy to note, mindlessly, that a scholar has a few references to support their case, and thereby assume that they've sufficiently established their thesis. This is far from the truth.

This specific example is from the beginning of the book, under Topic 10. Alter claims "When read chronologically, the gospel narratives exemplify continual enhancement." He gives two examples; the first of which, pertaining to the women watching Jesus' crucifixion and burial, will be discussed here. Here are the relevant texts for ease of reference:

Mark:

Mark 15.40-41: "There were also women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women followed him and took care of him. Many other women had come up with him to Jerusalem."

Mark 15.46-47: "After he bought some linen cloth, Joseph took him down and wrapped him in the linen. Then he laid him in a tomb cut out of the rock and rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were watching where he was laid."

Matthew:

Matthew 27.55-56: "Many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and looked after him were there, watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."

Matthew 27.59-61: "So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean, fine linen, and placed it in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. He left after rolling a great stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were seated there, facing the tomb."

Luke:

Luke 23.49: "But all who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things."

Luke 23.55: "The women who had come with him from Galilee followed along and observed the tomb and how his body was placed. Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment."

John:

John 19.25-27 "Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing there, he said to his mother, 'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his home."

Alter notes that Mark merely says the women were watching, Matthew reports this as well as that they were facing the tomb, and Luke reports these in addition to saying that the women beheld "how his body was placed". John adds in the scene with Mary at the foot of the cross. This is supposed to demonstrate a legendary development. However, it's remarkably easy to make anything look like a developing legend by cherry-picking details (Bart Ehrman does this too. See Lydia McGrew's discussion here). Reading the entire texts gives a much fuller picture:

Mark:

• Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome see the crucifixion. Mark spends slightly more time discussing them than later accounts; only he mentions Jerusalem.
• Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses see the burial.
• The women see where Jesus was laid.

Matthew:

• "Many women", including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons see the crucifixion. A few less words are written about it than Mark. No mention of Jerusalem.
• Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see the burial.
• The women are said to be seated there, facing the tomb. No mention of what they see.

Luke:

• A group of unnamed women see the crucifixion. Even less time is spent discussing them (progressive exaggeration is going backwards!).
• A group of unnamed women see the burial.
• They see his tomb and how the body was placed. There is no mention of where they are in relation to the tomb.
• The women obtain spices.

John:

• Longer conversation with the women at the cross (Jesus' mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.)
• No mention of women observing the burial.

When all the accounts are lined up, we have instances of both exaggeration and contraction. Some notable examples of contraction are that the women in Luke's accounts are unnamed: this is unexpected on the hypothesis of progressive exaggeration. Also in Luke, we aren't told how close the women are in relation to the tomb, though this information is supplied in the previous accounts. In John's Gospel, the women drop completely out of the burial account. Any other examples of apparent exaggeration can be accounted for by mere coincidence—with enough details distributed randomly across four accounts, some will invariably line up randomly as if to suggest progressive exaggeration.

An individual merely reading through Alter's summary of the accounts could well be convinced that progressive exaggeration exists across them all. All it takes is a glance at the source material to defuse the objection.

The Better Objections

Gasping for breath beneath the weight of all the filler are stronger objections that should be taken seriously. This is not to say such objections are insurmountable but rather that responses to them require more thought to devise. Dr. Timothy McGrew responds to three such objections here, here, and here. Another example is the timing of the crucifixion in John's Gospel, an objection which I have discussed here.

The Value of the Book

Despite the poor quality of much of the book, it is not without value. Alter has done a herculean feat in compiling so many skeptical objections into one place, providing a great reference work for looking up various objections, good and bad, to the passion and resurrection narratives. The book is meticulously sourced and is thus a good starting point for further research. It raises many issues that are worth thinking about. Thus, I am not saying you shouldn't read the book—I'm merely saying that you shouldn't be intimidated by it. Despite its hundreds of pages and thousands of footnotes, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry is no insuperable challenge to the Christian faith.

Did John Move the Crucifixion?

A common thesis among contemporary biblical scholars is that the Gospel of John took more liberties than the Synoptics when it comes to “theological narration”; that is, modifying the details of the stories about Jesus to make a theological point. A popular example of this pertains to the timing of the crucifixion.

 

While in the Synoptics, Jesus is crucified on Nisan 15, the day after the Passover lambs are killed, the Gospel of John supposedly has Jesus crucified on Nisan 14 to more directly portray him as the Passover lamb. In his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A Critical Inquiry, Michael J. Alter claims that this contradiction is “unequivocal” and "indisputable” [1]. There are scholars across the theological spectrum who advocate for a Johannine adaptation of the paschal chronology: on the skeptical side, Bart Ehrman; on the conservative side, Craig Keener and, to a lesser extent, Michael Licona. There are five verses, as well as a typological argument pertaining to the Lamb of God, commonly used to argue for this conclusion. I will discuss all of these here. The verses are John 13.1-2, 13.29, 18.39, 19.14, and 19.31 (all NASB).

Remember: the Passover lambs were killed on Nisan 14. At sunset, it becomes Nisan 15 and the Passover feast is celebrated. The crucifixion is the following day, still Nisan 15. So John allegedly has the Passover feast the night before the Synoptics (Nisan 14) and the crucifixion the following day (still Nisan 14), which is the day before the Synoptics have the Last Supper and the crucifixion (Nisan 15).

John 13.1-2       

“Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that His hour had come that He would depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him…”   

The relevant phrases here are “Before the Feast of the Passover” and “during supper”. Some scholars argue that this establishes the Last Supper as happening before the Passover Festival.

However, given that the Passover Festival is mentioned in the initial verse, it is entirely plausible to interpret the second verse as referring to the Passover feast itself. Lydia McGrew [2] quotes Craig Blomberg [3]:

“Imagine if I were to write about a comparable treasured annual American festival, Thanksgiving. ... ‘Now before the Thanksgiving Feast, my grandmother, knowing that her days were numbered, decided to go all out for her family and shower her love on us.’ Then imagine that, after a pause, my narrative continued, ‘When dinner time came…’ Without reference to any other meals anywhere in the context, would any American reader think of any dinner other than the eagerly expected Thanksgiving dinner?...Surely the same is true for the dinner of John 13.2, after the reference to the Passover in verse 1.”   

While it is certainly possible to interpret “supper” as referring to a meal before the Passover feast, it is equally if not more plausible to interpret it as referring to the Passover feast itself. Given the ease with which this passage can be harmonized with the Synoptic account, it shouldn’t be regarded as any evidence that John moved the Passover. If anything, it supports the Synoptic chronology.

John 13.29                           

“For some were assuming, since Judas kept the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, ‘Buy the things we need for the feast’; or else, that he was to give something to the poor.”   

The objection here is that the disciples’ conjecture of Judas buying what was needed for the festival indicates that the Passover feast is yet to come, rather than presently happening. It is also objected that purchasing food on Nisan 15 violates Leviticus 23.7 (“On the first day [of the festival of Unleavened Bread] you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work.”)

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, D.A. Carson offers a response to these concerns. It is worth quoting at length:

“These objections are far from convincing. One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this as taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e., not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishna Pesahim 4:5. One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishna Shabbath 23:1. Moreover, it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [4]

In summary, this verse also fails to support the thesis that the Passover feast, and thus, the crucifixion, were yet to come. It also gives a slight indication that this was the Passover feast via Judas being sent out to give something to the poor.

John 18.28     

“Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter the Praetorium, so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.”

Supposedly, the concern about being able to “eat the Passover” indicates that the Passover feast hadn’t occurred yet. On the face of it, this seems convincing, but there are good reasons to interpret the verse as referring to a different meal during Passover week, not the main feast at the beginning of the week.

Blomberg responds:                       

“John 18.28 actually makes better sense on the assumption that the main, initial meal of the Passover had occurred the night before. Ritual uncleanness due to entering an unclean house typically only lasted until the end of that day, and Jews calculated each day from sundown to sundown. So, if the Jewish leaders were worrying about not being able to eat the Passover after dark that night, then their worry seems unnecessary; the new day would have rendered them clean. But if they were concerned about the hagigah, the special lunch served midday after the start of Passover, then the text makes good sense. Indeed, the Mishnah would later devote an entire tractate to mid-festival days (Moed Katan) and another to the festal offerings (Hagigah), including the offerings brought in between the first and last days of feasts (e.g., Hag. 1.3.)” [5]   

Lydia McGrew comments:                       

“It is helpful at this point to back up and consider what these scholars are alleging and how strange it truly is. John's Gentile readers might very well not have known on what day the Passover lambs were killed anyway, and John does not mention lambs anywhere at all in the Passion narrative. He certainly does not state or emphasize that Jesus was killed on the day that the lambs were killed. As Blomberg notes, the only references in the Passion narratives to Passover lambs occur in the Synoptics, not in John. We are therefore to think that John, without bothering to mention any Passover lambs anywhere in the vicinity, invented a scruple on the part of the Jewish religious leaders that they never felt and narrates as if they had such a scruple merely in order to imply hyper-subtly that Jesus died on a day when he did not really die, in order to convey a symbolic meaning, based on a false fact, to any Jewish readers who happened to catch it and probably to no one else If anything is strained or forced, it is this theory, not the perfectly sensible answer to it.” [6]

McGrew goes on to say that John’s comment about the scruple of the religious leaders makes better sense in the narrative as an eyewitness recalling what happened, rather than a subtle clue that the date of the crucifixion had been changed.   

As with the other verses, this verse could be referring to the actual Passover feast, but there's an entirely plausible alternative interpretation that doesn't require a Johannine chronological adaptation. If anything, this verse supports the Synoptic paschal chronology due to laws on Jewish uncleanliness.

John 19.14       

“Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Look, your King!’”

The phrase “the day of preparation for the Passover” is taken by some scholars to mean that the Passover hadn’t yet happened. But that phrase can also be translated as “the day of preparation of the Passover”. There are two ways to interpret this verse: 1) the preparation for the Passover is taking place on this day, or 2) this is the day of preparation for the Sabbath that takes place during the Passover feast. Blomberg summarizes this effectively:

“As for John 19.14 and 31, the “day of Preparation” could refer to preparing for the Passover, but it more likely refers to preparing for the Sabbath. Verse 31 makes it explicit that the next day was to be a Sabbath, so both verses may well be using the term in that sense only. Even to this day, Paraskeuê in Greek is the standard name for Friday, the day before Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.” [7]

The word “Passover” can also be used of the Passover week as a whole. For example, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews Book XIV, 2.1, says “As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the passover…” So “Passover” need not be taken as a reference to the main Passover feast.

Given that in the same chapter, verse 31 probably refers to the Passover, it makes more sense that John is using the same meaning of the phrase in verse 14. This would mean the second option listed above is the most plausible meaning. This interpretation doesn't support either theory about the date of the crucifixion in John's gospel—it's irrelevant to the question.

 

The significance of “the sixth hour” and the alleged contradiction with Mark's Gospel is a topic that won’t be discussed here. A good treatment of it can be found in Lydia McGrew’s aforementioned book on John.

John 19.31                           

“Now then, since it was the day of preparation, to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews requested of Pilate that their legs be broken, and the bodies be taken away.”

The relevant portion of this verse is “that Sabbath was a high day”. Allegedly, this is a reference to the Passover. However, Carson comments: “It was a special Sabbath, not only because it fell during the Passover feast, but because the second paschal day, in this case falling on the Sabbath, was devoted to the very important sheaf offering (Lv 23.11; cf. SB 2. 582).” [8]

Lamb of God typology

An auxiliary argument for the thesis that John moved the crucifixion pertains to his alleged motives for doing it—namely, his desire to directly portray Jesus as the Passover lamb. The Passover lambs were killed on Nisan 14, so this is the date to which John allegedly moved the crucifixion. Craig Blomberg briefly replies: 

“With respect to Lamb-of-God typology, it is true that the Fourth Evangelist is the only New Testament writer to apply this term to Jesus, but most of the references come in Revelation. In his Gospel, John uses the term only in chapter 1. If John had intended the passing reference to noon in 19:14 to highlight Jesus as the true Passover lamb, John kept his reference about as brief and cryptic as he possibly could have. It is not good method to allow this possible allusion to dictate the interpretation of the rest of the Passion Narrative’s chronology.” [9]

Even if you take the Gospel of John and Revelation to have different authors, this undermines even further the notion that John had a special interest in Jesus as the Passover lamb, and thus, that he was trying to emphasize it via chronological reworking.

Another point that bears mentioning is the attribution of this Christological title in 1 Corinthians 5.7: “Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.” The Synoptics all agree on Nisan 15 as the date of crucifixion, so if this is indeed historical, the early Christians had no problem labeling Jesus their Passover lamb even though his death didn’t perfectly line up with the date of the slaughter of the Passover lambs. So a chronological shift is not necessary to convey this theological point. And it’s not unreasonable to expect that, if John had made this shift for that reason, he would have made a reference, in the passion narrative, to Jesus as the Lamb of God to drive his point home. We see this in Mark 14:12 “On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed…” 

While this argument from silence shouldn’t be given too much weight, the subtlety with which John would have executed this change should give us pause.

Conclusion 

The late Cullen Story writes, 

“By way of conclusion, we observe that John makes no overt attempt to correct the chronology of the Synoptic writers which says in effect that Jesus ate the passover meal with his disciples on Thursday evening and was crucified on Friday, "Friday of passover week" (John 19:14). In John 3:23-24, we find that the writer does make a conscious attempt to correct a possible misunderstanding by his readers of the Synoptic witness concerning the chronology of the Baptist's imprisonment. But in John 18-19, no similar effort is made to correct Synoptic passion chronology, intimating that the Johannine writer is in agreement with it.” [10]

Obviously, John’s silence on this point isn’t proof that he agrees with the Synoptic chronology, but it does bear mentioning.

In summary:

• The tradition of the last supper was well-known when John wrote his Gospel, and the parallels to the Synoptic version are clear. He never explicitly corrects the Synoptic chronology. Thus, in the absence of good evidence to the contrary, we should assume that the chronology is the same.

• The verses used to support the thesis that John moved the crucifixion either work better under the Synoptic chronology or work equally well under either, providing no evidence for a change.

• The typological argument relating to the Lamb of God is too trivial to tip the scales one way or the other. Jesus’ death doesn’t need to line up perfectly with the killing of the Passover lambs for the title to be applicable.

• Thus, there is no good evidence John moved the crucifixion, and accordingly, we should conclude that his chronology aligns with that of the Synoptics.

References

[1] Alter, Michael J. The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry. 2015, p. 110

[2] McGrew, Lydia. The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage. DeWard Publishing, 2021, p. 298

[3] Blomberg, Craig L. "A Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism" in James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, eds. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith Wheaton, IL Crossway Books, 2012, p. 355

[4] Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Inter-Varsity Press ; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991, p. 370

[5] Blomberg, Craig L. “Passion Problems.” Apologetics, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/passion-problems/. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.

[6] McGrew, Lydia. The Eye of the Beholder, p. 300-301

[7] Blomberg, Craig L. “Passion Problems.”

[8] Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John, p. 724

[9] Blomberg, Craig L. “Passion Problems.”

[10] Story, Cullen I.K. “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology On the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus”. Novum Testamentum 31.4 (1989): 316-324. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853689X00261 Web.