Appendix 3 Lastly, We Have To Inquire: Does The Account Of St. John Contradict Those Of The Synoptists, Or Is It Harmonious, Indeed, With Them, But Incomplete? 1. Probably few would commit themselves to the statement, that the account of St. John necessarily contradicts those of the Synoptists. But the following are the principal reasons urged by Dr. Farrar for the inference that, according to St. John, the Last Supper took place the evening before the Paschal night: "(a) Judas goes, as is supposed, to buy the things that they have need of against the feast. This has already been explained. (b) The Pharisees "went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." And in answer to the common explanation that "the Passover" here means the 15th day, Chaigigah, he adds, in a footnote, that "there was nothing specifically Paschal" about this Chaigigah. Dr. Farrar should have paused before committing himself to such a statement. One of the most learned Jewish writers, Dr. Saalschutz, is not of his opinion. He writes as follows": The whole feast and all its festive meals were designated as the Passover. See Deuteronomy 16:2, comp. 2 Chronicles 30:24, and 35:8, 9; Sebach. 99, b, Rosh ha Sh. 5, a, where it is expressly said "What is the meaning of the term Passover?" (Answer) "The peace-offerings of the Passover."" Illustrative Rabbinical passages are also quoted by Lightfoot:and by Schottgen. As a rule the Chagigah was always brought on the 15th Nisan, and it required Levitical purity. Lastly, Dr. Farrar himself admits that the statement of St. John (John 18:28) must not be too closely pressed, "for that some Jews must have even gone into the judgment-hall without noticing "the defilement" is clear." (c) According to St. John, (John 19:31) the following Sabbath was "a high day," or "a great day;" on which Dr. Farrar comments: "Evidently because it was at once; a Sabbath, and the first day of the Paschal Feast." Why not the second day of the feast, when the first omer was presented in the Temple? To these may be added the following among the other arguments advanced by Dr. Farrar: "(d) The various engagements recorded in the Gospels on the day of Christ"s crucifixion are incompatible with a festive day of rest, such as the 15th Nisan. The reference to "Simon the Cyrenian coming out of the country" seems to me scarcely to deserve special notice. But then Joseph of Arimathaea bought on that day the "line linen" (Mark 15:46) for Christ"s burial, and the women "prepared spices and ointments." (Luke 23:56) Here, however, it should be remembered, that the rigor of the festive was not like that of the Sabbatic rest; that there were means of really buying such a cloth without doing it in express terms (an evasion known to Rabbinical law). Lastly, the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 5, b) expressly declares it lawful on Sabbaths and feast-days to bring a coffin, graveclothes, and even mourning flutes "in short, to attend to the offices for the dead "just as on ordinary days. This passage, though, as far as I know, never before quoted in this controversy, is of the greatest importance. (e) Dr. Farrar attaches importance to the fact that Jewish tradition fixes the death of Christ on the 14th Nisan. But these Jewish traditions, to which an appeal is made, are not only of a late date, but wholly unhistorical and valueless. Indeed, as Dr. Farrar himself shows, they are full of the grossest absurdities. I cannot here do better than simply quote the words of the great Jewish historian, Dr. Jost: "Whatever attempts may be made to plead in favor of these Talmudic stories, and to try and discover some historical basis in them, the Rabbis of the third and fourth centuries are quite at sea about the early Christians, and deal in legends for which there is no foundation of any kind." (f) Dr. Farrar"s objection that "after supper" Jesus and His disciples went out, which seems to him inconsistent with the injunction of Exodus 12:22, and that in the account of the meal there is an absence of that hurry which, according to the law, should have characterized the supper, arises from not distinguishing the ordinances of the so-called "Egyptian" from those of "the permanent Passover." On this and kindred points the reader is referred to Chapters 11., 12. (g) The only other argument requiring notice is that in their accounts the three Synoptists "give not the remotest hint which could show that a lamb formed the most remarkable portion of the feast." Now, this is an objection which answers itself. For, according to Dr. Farrar, these Synoptists had, in writing their accounts, been under the mistaken impression that they were describing the Paschal Supper. As for their silence on the subject, it seems to me ,capable of an interpretation the opposite of that which Dr. Farrar has put upon it. Considering the purpose of all which they had in view "the fulfillment of the type of the Paschal Supper, and the substitution for it of the Lord"s Supper — their silence seems not only natural, but what might have been expected. For their object was to describe the Paschal Supper only in so far as it bore upon the institution of the Lord"s Supper. Lastly, it is a curious coincidence that throughout the whole Mishnic account of the Paschal Supper there is only one isolated reference to the lamb "a circumstance so striking, that, for example, Caspari has argued from it that ordinarily this meal was what he calls "a meal of unleavened bread," and that in the majority of cases there was no Passover lamb at all! I state the inference drawn by Dr. Caspari, but there can scarcely be any occasion for replying to it. On the other hand, I have now to add two arguments taken from the masterly disquisition of the whole question by Wieseler, to show that St. John, like the Synoptists, places the date of the crucifixion on the 15th Nisan, and hence that of the Last Supper on the evening of the 14th (a) Not only the Synoptists, but St. John (John 18:39) refers to the custom of releasing a prisoner at "the feast," or, as St. John expressly calls it, "at the Passover." Hence the release of Barabbas, and with it the crucifixion of Jesus, could not have taken place (as Dr. Farrar supposes) on the 14th of Nisan, the morning of which could not have been designated as "the feast," and still less as "the Passover." (b) When St. John mentions (John 18:28) that the accusers of Jesus went not into Pilate"s judgment-hall "lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover," he could not have referred to their eating the Paschal Supper. For the defilement thus incurred would only have lasted to the evening of that day, whereas the Paschal Supper was eaten after the evening had commenced, so that the defilement of Pilate"s judgement-hall in the morning would in no way have interfered with their eating the Paschal Lamb. But it would have interfered with their either offering or partaking of the Chagigah on the 15th Nisan. 2. Hitherto I have chiefly endeavored to show that the account of St. John is harmonious with that of the Synoptists in reference to the time of the Last Supper. But, on the other hand, I am free to confess that, if it had stood alone, I should not have been able to draw the same clear inference from it as from the narratives of the first three Gospels. My difficulty here arises, not from what St. John says, but from what he does not say. His words, indeed, are quite consistent with those of the Synoptists, but, taken alone, they would not have been sufficient to convey, at least to my mind, the same clear impression. And here I have to observe that St. John"s account must in this respect seem equally incomplete, whichever theory of the time of the Last Supper be adopted. If the Gospel of St. John stood alone, it would, I think, be equally difficult for Dr. Farrar to prove from it his, as for me to establish my view. He might reason from certain expressions, and so might I; but there are no such clear, unmistakable statements as those in which the Synoptists describe the Passover night as that of the Last Supper. And yet we should have expected most fullness and distinctness from St. John! Is not the inference suggested that the account in the Gospel of St. John, in the form in which we at present possess it, may be incomplete? I do not here venture to construct a hypothesis, far less to offer a matured explanation, but rather to make a suggestion of what possibly may have been, and to put it as a question to scholars. But once admit the idea, and there are, if not many, yet weighty reasons, to confirm it. It would account for all the difficulties felt by those who have adopted the same view as Dr. Farrar, and explain, not, indeed, the supposed difference "for such I deny "but the incompleteness of St. John"s narrative, as compared with those of the Synoptists. It explains what otherwise seems almost unaccountable. I agree with Dr. Farrar that St. John"s "accounts of the Last Supper are incomparably more full than those of the other Evangelists," and that he "was more immediately and completely identified with every act ill those last trying scenes than any one of the apostles." And yet, strange to say, on this important point St. John"s information is not only more scanty than that of the Synoptists, but so indefinite that, of alone, no certain inference could be drawn from it. The circumstance is all the more inexplicable if, as on Dr. Farrar"s theory, "the error" of the Synoptists was at the time "generally prevalent," and St. John silently but deliberately," had set himself to correct it. Strangest of all, the Gospel of St. John is the only one which does not contain any account of the institution of the Lord"s Supper, and yet, if anywhere; we would have expected to find it here. 4. The account in John 13, begins with a circumstantially which leads us to expect great fulness of detail. And yet, while maintaining throughout that characteristic, so far as the teaching of Jesus in that night is concerned, it almost suddenly and abruptly breaks off (about ver. 31) in the account of what He and they who sat with Him did at the Supper. Of such a possible hiatus there seems, on closer examination, some internal confirmation, of which I shall here only adduce this one instance "that chapter 14: concludes by, "Arise, let us go hence;" which, however, is followed by other three chapters of precious teaching and intercessory prayer, when the narrative is abruptly resumed, by a strange repetition, as compared with 14:31, in these words (18:1): "When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron." Further discussion would lead beyond the necessary limits of the present Excursus. Those who know how bitterly the Quartodeciman controversy raged in the early Church, and what strong things were put forth by the so-called "disciples of John" in defense of their view, that the Last Supper did not take place on the Paschal night, may see grounds to account for such a hiatus. In conclusion, I would only say that, to my mind, the suggestion above made would in no way be inconsistent with the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture.