Maybe, maybe not. I suddenly realised something the other day: the evidence that Jesus is killed during the Passover isn't compelling. Our two earliest sources do not mention it.
Our first earliest source (undisputed) is Paul. Paul says Jesus was killed by the rulers of this age, and that he "died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" both in 1 Corinthians. Yet he doesn't mention the Last Supper as being a Passover, or that it was in fact Jesus' last meal, and nor does he mention the crucifixion taking place during (or just before) the Passover.
The next earliest source is Acts 13:26-41, where the author records a full account of the Passion narrative, but it does not include anything about a Passover. Also it appears to be free from Marcan influence as well as the other New Testament gospels. This might sound strange because the author also wrote the gospel of Luke, however it is clear that in this passage Luke is recounting a completely separate telling of the passion narrative, one that is more basic, and he attributes it to Paul. And perhaps importantly on the attribution, it largely agrees with what Paul teaches about it in his letters, where Paul doesn't show any knowledge of things that appear later in the gospel versions.
Examples of things not found in Acts or Paul include but are not limited to- the Passover, Joseph of Arimathea, the Jews asking for Barabbas to be freed, the empty tomb, and the physical resurrection. Examples of things found in the Acts narrative and the Paul narrative include: Jesus is killed by the Roman authorities, that he "died for our sins", that God raised him to heaven, and that some of his followers had Christophanies. Aside from God raising Jesus to heaven which we can't possibly verify historically, those are facts that historical-Jesus scholars generally accept. But more than half of the examples in the first list are disputed, as is whether Jesus is laid in an expensive tomb rather than buried dishonorably.
So this makes me think that the crucifixion happening near the Passover is an expansion on the story: from a very early time, probably within months of Jesus dying, his followers associated his death as being sacrificial for their sins (1 Cor 15:3). Even by the time Paul is writing they have begun the practise of the Eucharist based on the Last Supper narrative; and both of those became intertwined and associated with Jewish Passover. The parallels are undeniable, and it's likely no coincidence, therefore I am proposing that Jesus' death occurring during Passover is likely an expansion to the original story.
Our first earliest source (undisputed) is Paul. Paul says Jesus was killed by the rulers of this age, and that he "died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" both in 1 Corinthians. Yet he doesn't mention the Last Supper as being a Passover, or that it was in fact Jesus' last meal, and nor does he mention the crucifixion taking place during (or just before) the Passover.
The next earliest source is Acts 13:26-41, where the author records a full account of the Passion narrative, but it does not include anything about a Passover. Also it appears to be free from Marcan influence as well as the other New Testament gospels. This might sound strange because the author also wrote the gospel of Luke, however it is clear that in this passage Luke is recounting a completely separate telling of the passion narrative, one that is more basic, and he attributes it to Paul. And perhaps importantly on the attribution, it largely agrees with what Paul teaches about it in his letters, where Paul doesn't show any knowledge of things that appear later in the gospel versions.
Examples of things not found in Acts or Paul include but are not limited to- the Passover, Joseph of Arimathea, the Jews asking for Barabbas to be freed, the empty tomb, and the physical resurrection. Examples of things found in the Acts narrative and the Paul narrative include: Jesus is killed by the Roman authorities, that he "died for our sins", that God raised him to heaven, and that some of his followers had Christophanies. Aside from God raising Jesus to heaven which we can't possibly verify historically, those are facts that historical-Jesus scholars generally accept. But more than half of the examples in the first list are disputed, as is whether Jesus is laid in an expensive tomb rather than buried dishonorably.
So this makes me think that the crucifixion happening near the Passover is an expansion on the story: from a very early time, probably within months of Jesus dying, his followers associated his death as being sacrificial for their sins (1 Cor 15:3). Even by the time Paul is writing they have begun the practise of the Eucharist based on the Last Supper narrative; and both of those became intertwined and associated with Jewish Passover. The parallels are undeniable, and it's likely no coincidence, therefore I am proposing that Jesus' death occurring during Passover is likely an expansion to the original story.
Comment