Geza Vermes
reviews Jesus of Nazareth part 2 by Pope Benedict in yesterday's Guardian. He thinks the book continues the tone of the first volume: as an extended sermon. He is glad to note that shards of NT criticism seem to have made an impact on the Pope's work. But this impact is muted. How, for example, does the Pope deal with conflicting schedules in the gospel accounts of the Passion narrative?
The facts are these. In the synoptics the last supper is a Passover meal eaten after sunset, when the Jewish day starts, on 15th Nisan. Everything that follows – Jesus's arrest, his trial and sentencing to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high court, his transfer to Pilate on the different charge of sedition, and the Roman proceedings leading to the crucifixion – occurs on the Passover festival. Yet the chief priests, sticklers for legal minutiae, spend the whole night and day engaged in forbidden activities on a feast day.
John, by contrast, antedates everything by 24 hours. The last supper is not a Passover dinner. There is no Jewish blasphemy trial; Jesus is simply interrogated by the former high priest Annas. In the morning, without the accused being present, the chief priests convene and decide to deliver the revolutionary Jesus to Pilate early on 14th Nisan. They refuse to enter the palace so as not to be defiled and barred from eating the Passover meal that evening.
Any historian familiar with Judaism must realise that the synoptic timetable is impossible: Jesus's two trials and crucifixion could not have taken place on Passover day. Obliged to make a critical choice, the pope judges the synoptic chronology erroneous and opts correctly for that of the fourth gospel. However, he wants to have it both ways. Instead of adopting the coherent story from John's gospel, he transfers the synoptic details that are missing from John, including the Jewish trial, to the day before Passover. But taking such liberties turns out to be costly: the denial of the last supper's paschal character flatly contradicts the clear mention of the feast in the synoptics and, further, clashes with the reference that Jesus and his party had sung the halleluiah psalms, "the hymn" concluding the Passover dinner, before they departed to Gethsemane.
While the Pope is correct to clarify that the responsibility for the death of Jesus does not lie with the Jewish people (cf Matthew 27:25),
One should add that the pope spoils the effect of his denial of general Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus by explaining the verse in Matthew as a "theological etiology" – an anticipated justification by Matthew of the terrible fate and total destruction the Jews brought on themselves by demanding Christ's execution.