Appendix 2


What, Fairly Speaking, Is The Inference From The Synoptical Gospels?



1.To this, I should say, there can be only one reply: "The Synoptical
Gospels, undoubtedly, place the Last Supper in the Paschal night. A bare
quotation of their statements will establish this: "Ye know that after
two days is the Passover"; (Matthew 26:19) "Now the first day of
unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt
Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?" (Matthew 26:17) "I
will keep the Passover at thy house" (Matthew 26:18). "They made ready
the Passover. (Matthew 26:19) Similarly, in the Gospel by St. Mark (Mark
14:12-17) "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the
Passover, the disciples said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and
prepare, that Thou mayest eat the Passover?" "The Master saith, Where
is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples?
"There make ready for us." "And they made ready the Passover. And in
the evening He cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat. . ."
And in the Gospel by St. Luke (Luke 22:7-15) Then came the day of
unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed;" "Go and prepare us
the Passover, that we may eat;" "Where is the guest-chamber where I
shall eat the Passover with my disciples?" "There make ready;" "And
they made ready the Passover." "And when the hour was come He sat
down;" "With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you BEFORE
I SUFFER." It is not easy to understand how even a "preconceived
theory" could weaken the obvious import of such expressions, especially
when taken in connection with the description of the meal that follows.



2. Assuming, then, the testimony of the Synoptical Gospels to be
unequivocally in our favor, it appears to me extremely improbable that, in
such a matter, they should have been mistaken, or that such an "erroneous
impression" could "and this even "in the time of St. John" have
"come to be generally prevalent." On the contrary, I have shown that if
mistake there was, it would most likely have been rather in the opposite:
direction.



3. We have now to consider what Dr. Farrar calls "the incidental notices
preserved in the Synoptists," which seem to militate against their
general statement. Selecting those which are of greatest force, we have:
"(a) The fact" that the disciples (John 13:22) suppose Judas to have
left the room in order to buy what things they had need of against the
feast." But the disciples only suppose this; and in the confusion and
excitement of the scene such a mistake was not unintelligible. Besides,
though servile work was forbidden on the first Paschal day, the preparation
of all needful provision for the feast was allowed, and must have been the
more necessary, as, on our supposition, it was followed by a Sabbath.
Indeed, the Talmudical law distinctly allowed the continuance of such
preparation of provisions as had been commenced on the "preparation
day" (Arnheim, Gebeth. d. Isr., p. 500, note 69, a). In general, we here
refer to our remarks at p. 247, only adding, that even now Rabbinical
ingenuity can find many a way of evading the rigor of the Sabbath-law.



(b) As for the meeting of the Sanhedrim, and the violent arrest of  Christ
on such a night of peculiar solemnity, the fanatical hatred of the chief
priests, and the supposed necessities of the case, would  sufficiently
account for them. On any supposition we have to admit the operation of
these causes, since the Sanhedrim confessedly violated, in the trial of
Jesus, every principle and form of their own criminal jurisprudence.