On the issue of Christ's Easter Supper

(Notandum to the remarks of Prof. A. A. Nekrasov). In his article about the “New Year”, published in the first book of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for 1897 (pp. 65–78), Kazansky prof. This is not the first time that A. A. Nekrasov touches on the issue of the day of the Easter supper and the death of Christ the Savior. In terms of arguing his views, the author’s progress is rather slow, and by the new year he had not given us anything truly new - except for a few polemical reproaches of a personal nature. This is the circumstance that deserves our attention, because it concerns us directly. Prof. A. A. Nekrasov, by the way, notes that “all four evangelists call Friday the first unleavened bread or the first day of the Easter holiday (- thereby convincing that the Easter lamb was slain on Thursday evening according to our reckoning? -)... But,” he continues, “they “found” contradictions among the evangelists themselves. Thus, one of the modern theologians writes: “according to the clear testimony of the first three evangelists, the Savior celebrated the supper at the proper time, i.e. 14th Nisan, and - therefore - was crucified on the first day of the holiday. In contrast to this an. John no less decisively certifies that Christ reclined with the disciples before the Passover holiday (John 13:1), and in the morning the Jews did not enter (to Pilate) into the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover (John 18:28), which means it should have been in the evening. The discrepancy is completely obvious and does not require proof. Meanwhile, Saint John the Theologian says something completely different” (“Right. Sobesedn.”, 1897. pp. 1, 70–72; italics and insertion in brackets are ours). It turns out that the honorary title of “one of the modern theologians” prof. A. A. Nekrasov awarded me because he has a link to the corresponding excerpt under the line (p. 72) and a link: “N. Glubokovsky. "About the Easter Supper of Christ." St. Petersburg, 1893” (“Christian Reading,” 1893. No. 7–8. Page 3). I must frankly say that I cannot consider such an assessment flattering for myself, since it receives an ironic meaning from the author, or it will be a simple misunderstanding of him, for what kind of theologian is he who goes against “all four evangelists”?! It turns out that I deliberately “look for” contradictions in the Gospels where complete agreement prevails, and distort the words of the Apostle John if he “says something completely different”... I willingly want to believe that such an impression about my “theology” is apart from the intentions of Prof. A. A. Nekrasov; nevertheless, it is too gloomy - and I am of necessity forced to clear the fog with which my unexpected opponent has shrouded me... For this is enough for only a few corrections. 1) Immediately after my quotation from Mr. A. A. Nekrasov, I noticed: “it is self-evident that it is positively impossible to admit it (discrepancy) in the Gospels regarding such outstanding and exceptional events in the life of the Lord” (ibid., p. 3); evidence? - 2) In answer to this question, it is enough for me to refer to the entire literary history (apparently completely unknown to Prof. A.A. Nekrasov) on this subject, which from ancient times to this day has constantly caused controversy and bewilderment. There is no doubt, therefore, that there are real difficulties in it, and no one needs to “find” them. The basis for this is already given in the words of the Apostle John, that “before the feast of the Passover Jesus... loved those who are his” (John 13:1). Earlier in the book “Reading the Greek Text of the Holy Gospels” (Kazan, 1888. pp. 88, 144 – 148) this remark by prof. A. A. Nekrasov refers exclusively to the removal of Christ to Ephraim (John 11:54), and now considers it possible to assume that it includes “and the Last Supper with the washing of the feet” (p. 74), why these events will also be “before the Easter holiday”; but connected with them (John 18:12) is the capture of the Lord, which - according to the first three evangelists - was “on the day of the Easter holiday”... Isn’t this “an obvious (and for Prof. A. A. Nekrasov) discrepancy”? 3) And prof. A.A. Nekrasov cannot deny that (John 18:28) irresistibly indicates that the day of the crucifixion was not Easter for the Jews; he only believes that – in contrast to “Jewish Friday” (John 19:42) – p’tok pasce (John 19:14) means “Easter Friday or Easter Friday, and not ordinary and not the Friday before Easter” (p. 71). From here it turns out that St. John - in agreement with other evangelists - considered and called the day of the crucifixion Easter. This assumption, which sometimes surfaced in the form of a quickly bursting bubble on the surface of the sea of ​​hypotheses of exegetical harmonics, does not change the matter at all, since - and in the opinion of Prof. A. A. Nekrasov - this Friday for all Jews (even for Joseph and Nicodemus) was not Easter, meanwhile, Christ had already celebrated the supper of the Passover lamb. Again, the discrepancy is “absolutely obvious”, and the whole question is only in eliminating it. Then why force me to “find” what Mr. A.A. himself did? Nekrasov admits so sharply that he dares to assert that “the Jews were supposed to celebrate Passover on Friday, but by celebrating it on Saturday, they celebrated it illegally” (p. 75) - especially since the author cannot make a mistake in the Jewish calculation of new moons (pp. 69 - 70)?.. We are too little interested in this radical (and for us personally - absolutely incredible) solution, new only because it has long been forgotten - and We limit ourselves to simply pointing out that the venerable Kazan opponent, no less than ours, accepts the existence of heteroglossia in the Gospels on the subject under consideration, but to explain it he recommends other means that are not accepted by “any of the modern theologians.” After this, all I can do is say, together with prof. A. A. Nekrasov (p. 78) “dixi”, but I cannot add “et animam levavi” until he testifies that my words in his note received completely incorrect coverage that does not correspond to reality. If this did not happen intentionally, then so much the better for him, although not the more pleasant for me... You might be interested in: