drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) (06/04/91)
I wrote in an earlier posting: >Commentators over the years have endevoured to reconcile John's account with >that of the Synoptists. and >>IF Jesus ate a special meal, would it not have been mentioned ???!!! > >John does seem to offer support for this by terming it 'the supper' (John >13:2), and saying that this was before the Feast of the Passover (v1). >Paul offers support by terming it the "Lord's Supper" (1 Cor 11:20). I was not going to add to this subject, but over the weekend this topic came up between a couple of friends and myself, one of my friends being a virtual "encyclopedia" in the area of history as it relates to the Bible. My friend explained that there is no problem with the Synoptic writers terming the meal Jesus ate, "the Passover". There were in effect at that time, two distinct meals. One was known as the 'Chagigah' or Passover Feast, a Feast or meal which was eaten on the evening of the 14th as a part of the preparation rites of the 14th, for the killing of the Passover Lambs the following afternoon. This was followed the next evening (the 15th) by the Passover meal proper which consisted of the eating of the Lamb. Apparently the Chagigah is of Talmudic origin. It is distinguished from the Passover meal on the 15th in a number of ways: a) it was eaten sitting down, while the Passover meal with the Lamb, was eaten standing up (Ex 12:11). [I don't know whether the 'standing up' provision is still in force today, but it was in the days of Jesus, according to my friend.] The Bible tells us Jesus ate the Chagigah (Passover Feast) sitting down (Luke 22:14). b) There was no lamb present at the Chagigah, only bread and wine (and presumably a few other things). My friend has promised to locate the actual Talmudic references and other historical references regarding this for me, and I will post the details when he does so. However, for any of the super curious, the Companion Bible by Bullinger has references to some of these things in the comments on Luke, Matthew and Mark, and his appendices. I suppose it just goes to show how incredibly detailed and involved the world of Jesus was, and how much background information was taken for granted by the gospel writers when they wrote. Drew.