The Chronology of the Passion

When discussing the Last Supper it is only natural to begin with the debate over the chronology and nature of the meal. Many books and much scholarship has been dedicated to this specific aspect of the Last Supper. So much so that Charles C. Torrey wrote: 

It might seem to be a duty to apologize for renewing discussion of this worn-out subject, where the ground has been raked over and over, and the question is generally regarded as closed. The raking process has not been finally prohibited…”

Torrey penned these words in 1931. Yet, scholarship continues to work on the seeming problems found between the narratives and has made significant advancements within the past 80 years. Due to the vast amount of work on the chronology of the Last Supper, my approach here will be to lay out the Passion chronology as describe by the synoptic tradition and show how the “problematic” portions of John can be viewed as perfectly harmonious with the Synoptic tradition. My chronological views follow those of many scholars, but have specifically been collated and expanded by scholars such as Tim Hegg and more recently Dr. Brant Pitre. This position, which Dr. Pitre has titled the “Passover Hypotheses,” argues the Last Supper is in fact a Passover Meal. 

While numerous proposals have been made on the chronology of the Last Supper, several stand out as the most common. Joachim Jeremias sights three main views that scholars have taken on this issue. (1) The Johannine hypothesis, i.e. that John’s account is correct and Jesus and His disciples were not eating a Passover Meal, but were rather, partaking in a farewell covenant meal that took place on Nisan 13. (2) The Synoptic hypothesis, i.e. that the Synoptic accounts are correct and Jesus and His disciples were…