THE PASSOVER WAS AT THE START OF THE 14TH OF NISAN

With the Passover approaching some people are again looking at the time when the Passover was kept by Israel before they left Egypt. It is always amazing to me that there are so many people who feel that Israel must have killed the Passover lambs at the end of the 14th of Nisan.

That is totally false!

The biblical evidence is quite clear that Israel did in fact kill the Passover lambs at the start of the 14th of Nisan!

I have heard on more than one occasion that there are many people, including ministers in God’s Church, who are convinced that O.T. Israel kept the Passover at the end of the 14th of Nisan. While such people generally acknowledge that the New Testament instructs us to observe the Passover at the start of the 14th day, they nevertheless believe that in Old Testament times Israel was instructed by God to kill the Passover at the end of the 14th of Nisan.

That is false!

In this article I present the evidence that O.T. Israel did in fact keep the Passover at the start of the 14th of Nisan. But first here is something to consider.

When it comes to choosing between believing the Bible or believing their traditions (i.e. "the traditions of the fathers", as they have been preserved in the Talmud), then the Jewish religion today will by and large always go with the traditions, even when those traditions contradict biblical instructions and biblical revelation.

In this way the Jewish religion is no different from the Catholic Church, which places the teachings of the "church fathers" ahead of what the Bible actually says. This is also evident from published statements in "The History of the Talmud" by Michael J. Rodkinson. It is a fact ... the Jewish religion doesn’t really accept the Bible, whenever the Bible contradicts its accepted traditions.

To justify their traditions, Jewish religious leaders have in the past, amongst other things, invented new meanings and new ways of interpreting Old Testament biblical Hebrew words. In this article we will look at what the Bible says. We’ll use the Bible itself to explain Hebrew words, where religious authorities have tried to twist the meanings of those words, for the sake of supporting their traditions.

For us the question then boils down to this:

Do we believe the Bible, and how the Bible itself explains those Hebrew words? Or do we believe Jewish "experts" who clearly have a vested interest in the outcome, and who have come up with "new meanings" for Hebrew words in situations where their traditions absolutely depend on those "new meanings"?

One example is the Jewish claim that the Hebrew word "shabbath" can also mean "week". That claim is absurd, when judged by everything that is written in the Old Testament. "Shabbath" never means "week".

The word "shabbath" literally means "day of cessation", and it is absurd to attach the meaning of "a period of 7 days" (i.e. a week) to a word that means "a day of cessation". But the reason why Jewish authorities today insist that "shabbath" can also (supposedly) mean "week" is that this is the only way for them to justify their tradition of keeping Pentecost on Sivan 6th.

Another example affects the Passover.

Jewish authorities claim that "the evening" can start at 3:00 p.m., or even at noon. And connected to this is the Jewish claim that "the morning" can start while it is still dark, or even any time after midnight. In this instance the Jewish leaders have simply invented new ways of defining "evening" and "morning", in order to be able to hold fast to their traditions. But these new definitions contradict what the Bible clearly tells us about "the evening" and "the morning".

So let’s now look at the evidence that the Passover in Egypt was observed at the start of the 14th day.

The Bible instructions read as follows:

The Hebrew word here translated as "in" is the word "beyn", which is used as a preposition, and which means "between". This is also acknowledged in the KJV by the marginal comment which reads "between the two evenings".

(Hebrew "beyn" is also transliterated as "ben" in other places.)

Now the evening is a period of time that starts with sunset and ends with the onset of total darkness. "The evening" comes time-wise after "the day" and before "the night". The unqualified statement "the evening" does not refer to one specific point in time, like, for example, the word "sunset". No, "the evening" refers to a short period of time. This is elementary.

But what if we want to pinpoint very precisely the whole period we have in mind, to avoid the possibility of starting that period too early or going too late ... how would we do that?

To be very precise for the period we have in mind, we need to identify the exact starting point, and also the exact ending point for the period we identify as "evening". With those two reference points clearly identified, we have precisely limited the period we identify as "evening".

So if we want to pinpoint "the period from after the sun has set until just before total darkness sets in", then we say "between the two evenings". With this expression we mean that the first evening is the point in time when the sun has just set, and the second evening is the point in time when total darkness begins. And in this way the expression "between the two evenings" very precisely pinpoints the entire period between these two extremities.

No other time of day qualifies for the word "evening".

Any time before sunset is not evening; it is day. And any time after darkness has set in is also not evening; it is night. Evening is the short period of transition between day and night.

This short period of time is identified by the OT Hebrew expression "beyn ha-arbayim", meaning "between the two evenings". And so the correct translation of Exodus 12:6 should read:

"... the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the two evenings".

In this matter the above quoted marginal comment for this verse in the KJV is correct.

Since this correct translation cannot be disputed, therefore people then argue instead about: "yes, but how must we define "evening"? That’s the same argument as asking: "yes, but who is my neighbor?".

Thus the correct translation of Exodus 12:6 shows that the Passover lambs were to be killed after sunset at the very start of the 14th day. And a late-14th Passover is contrary to the account in Exodus.

Now let’s examine the Jewish claims that the "evening" can start at 3:00 p.m., or even at noon. Let’s look at the Jewish evidence, first in the Jewish Translations of the Old Testament, and then in the Talmud.

Here are a number of different English language translations for Exodus 12:6. We have already seen the KJV.

(The only LXX available today was produced by Origen in the 200's A.D.)

1917 JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY (JPS)

(downloaded from: Sefaria.org)

Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary (from: Chabad.org)

The above eleven translations should suffice to illustrate what has happened. Let’s divide these eleven translations into three groups: firstly, the Greek language LXX translation, produced by the Catholic scholar Origen in the 200's A.D. Next, we have the translations produced by Christian translators. And thirdly, we have the translations produced by Jewish translators.

Group 1 = Greek language LXX

This translation ("toward evening"), made in the 200's A.D. (proof for a supposed B.C. origin for the LXX simply does not exist!), reflects the Jewish tradition of a late-14th Passover. This is not a correct translation of the Hebrew text. Rather, it is a reflection of the prevailing Jewish custom at Origen’s time.

(In the Latin Vulgate Jerome copied this wrong Greek translation into his Latin text, which reads "ad vesperam", Latin for "toward evening". So the Latin translation is also wrong.)

Group 2 = Translations by Christian translators

Translations like Darby and Young’s ("between the (two) evenings") have translated the Hebrew text literally. They are correct.

Translations like the NIV and NRSV ("at twilight") have correctly understood that the Hebrew expression refers to the period we in English call "twilight" or "dusk". And so these translations are also correct.

Group 3 = Translations by Jewish translators

Three translations translate this verse correctly as "at dusk" (1917 JPS and the Complete Jewish Bible) or as "at twilight" (1985 Revised JPS). So the Jewish translators of these three translations understand the expression "beyn ha-arbayim" to refer to the period that starts with sunset and ends with total darkness. Instead of translating the Hebrew literally, they opted to present the correct application (i.e. dusk or twilight) of this expression in our English language context. They are correct.

Three other translations translated this verse incorrectly as "toward evening" (1853 Leeser OT) or as "in the afternoon" (Orthodox Jewish Bible and Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary). "Beyn ha-arbayim" does not mean "toward evening", and neither does it mean "in the afternoon". These two English expressions represent very flawed biased interpretations of the Hebrew text; they do not represent accurate translations.

These two groups of three Jewish translators each illustrate the differences between "translations" and "interpretations". The three "translations" are correct, and the three "interpretations" are incorrect.

Coming back to changing the meaning of Hebrew words:

The three "translations" have accepted the established meaning for "evening" as "the period of dusk or twilight". The three "interpretations", on the other hand, don’t care about the actual meaning of the Hebrew phrase they are supposedly translating. Instead, they insist that the word "evening" also includes parts or all of "the afternoon". It is, in fact, absolutely essential for these three "interpretations" to insist that "evening" must surely include parts of the afternoon before sunset.

Without their changed definition for the word "evening" their entire position collapses. They are the same people who insist that the Hebrew word "shabbath" must also mean "week", or else their teaching about Pentecost also collapses.

So when it comes to examining translations provided by Jewish scholars, then we need to always ask ourselves: are they faithfully translating the Hebrew text, or are they interpreting the Hebrew text so it will be compatible with their own beliefs? Understand that all of the translators are looking at the exact same Hebrew text. The different ways they translate the same Hebrew expression is not due to any differences in understanding Hebrew words and expressions. The differences between them are due to the different meanings some of them arbitrarily (i.e. without biblical support) assign to specific Hebrew words, when other equally qualified scholars don’t do that.

Thus the Jewish scholars that translated the JPS and the Revised JPS have just as good an understanding of Hebrew as do the scholars who chose to translate the Hebrew as "in the afternoon". Yet in spite of equally good understanding of biblical Hebrew they came up with different translations.

It is clear that the translation "toward evening" is very contrived. The Hebrew preposition "beyn" doesn’t mean "toward"; and if "beyn" did mean "toward", then it still would have to be "toward the evenings", plural! And that doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t mean "toward".

And the translation "in the afternoon" is even more contrived! No part of the Hebrew expression "beyn ha-arbayim" means "afternoon"! And if it did mean "afternoon", then it still would have to be "between the two afternoons". That also doesn’t make any sense. But it doesn’t mean "afternoon".

The literal meaning of "beyn ha-arbayim" is well known and beyond dispute. And so when people interpret the Hebrew expression to support their own personal beliefs, then that can be spotted fairly easily, provided we are looking for the truth.

We should note that even though the Greek LXX and the Latin Vulgate both translate Exodus 12:6 incorrectly, the Christian English language translators overwhelmingly did not follow those wrong translations. The reason they didn’t follow the LXX and the Vulgate is because "beyn ha-arbayim" is really an easy expression to understand. It is not really ambiguous. And without any late-14th Passover tradition to defend, the Christian English language translators were free to translate this expression correctly, in spite of the misleading LXX and Vulgate precedents. And that’s what they did; they translated it correctly.

Now let’s examine some evidence from the Talmud.

We’ve seen that some Jewish translators have translated the expression as "in the afternoon" or as "toward evening". But we have not yet seen how they arrived at these incorrect translations.

The Talmud will show us this missing information. The Talmud exposes the reasoning they have used to conclude that the original Passover was in the late afternoon. The Talmud shows that this reasoning is specious and contrived.

The quotations from the electronic computer version of the Talmud that I will present are all taken from the Soncino edition of the Jewish Talmud. All capitalization, all punctuation, spelling mistakes, etc. are exactly as they appear in the Talmud. I have not made any changes to the text, except that I have bolded specific words to highlight them. There is a lot of capitalization employed, but that is how it appears in the Talmud.

The format I will use with these Talmud quotations is as follows:

First, I’ll quote a section of the text from the Talmud. Embedded within that text are numbers from "1" into the "50's" and even higher. These numbers refer to footnotes that follow each section of text. Second, I then present any relevant footnotes. Where no relevant footnotes apply, I will omit this step. Third, only after that will I present my comments on the text and/or footnotes in question.

This format I will follow for all Talmud quotations below. In a number of cases the significance only becomes apparent upon closer inspection. Without such closer inspection it is easy to miss the significance of those quotations.

Understand also that many of the Talmudic statements will not make sense to you or to me. It is only the statements that I will address in my comments that are significant for our subject.

One last preliminary comment: You can find the meaning of strange words (e.g. "terumah", "Cutheans", "tamid", erub, exedra, etc.) that appear in the text of these quotations on my website under "Research Center" and then "Jewish Terms and Their Meanings".

So here we go.

(1) If the purchase took place on the Sabbath eve immediately before dusk (when there is no time to remove these priestly and levitical dues from the wine) and he requires the wine for the Sabbath. It is prohibited to separate priestly or levitical dues on the Sabbath, v. Bez. 36b.

(2) A log (v. Glos.) is c. 549 cubic centimeters.

(3) For the hundred log contained in the cask he bought.

(4) `Log which I am about to set aside’.

(5) The second tithe

(6) With money (cf. Deut. XIV, 25) that he has at home or anywhere else.

Notice the following point from footnote (1), which talks about a man buying wine from the Cutheans. Footnote (1) explains what a man "may" do in this situation.

The situation they explain is if the man buys the wine late on Friday afternoon (which the Jews call "the Sabbath eve", even though the Sabbath has clearly not yet started, the man is still buying things). The reference to "immediately before dusk" shows that they understood quite clearly that with "dusk" a new day starts (in this case the Sabbath). This quotation makes clear that the Jews understand that dusk starts a new day.

Notice again that the Jews at the time of "R. Gamaliel" understood that with dusk a new day starts! And "dusk" is NOT before sunset. In this case Gamaliel reasoned as follows:

(49) On the Sabbath eve before dusk.

(50) After dusk when the Sabbath had already begun.

(51) I.e., the town was within his Sabbath limit.

(52) Sc. he is not allowed to move freely about the town as the people who were in it at the hour the Sabbath had commenced.

(53) At the time the Sabbath had set in.

My Comments

Again it is quite clear that the Pharisees (whose teachings the Talmud expounds) understood that the day started at dusk! It follows that Nisan 14th had to start at sunset and not with darkness. "Dusk" is always the first part of a new day.

Talmud - Mas. Eiruvin 76a (very long quote to maintain the context)

Rehaba tested the Rabbis: If there were two courtyards and between them two houses 3 and a tenant 4 of the one [courtyard] came through the one [house] and deposited his `erub in the other 5 while a tenant 6 of the other [courtyard] came through the latter [house] and deposited his `erub in the former, do they 7 thereby acquire the privileges of `erub 8 or not? Do we regard each house in relation to the one [courtyard] 9 as a house and in relation to the other [courtyard] 10 as a gate-house? 11 _ Both, 12 they replied, do not acquire the privileges of `erub. For, whatever you assume, [this must be the result]. If you regard either house as a gate-house, `an `erub deposited in a gate-house, exedra or balcony is not a valid `erub’; 13 and if you regard either as a proper house, the tenants would be carrying objects into a house which was not covered by their `erub. 14 But why should this ruling be different from that of Raba, 15 who laid down: If two persons said to a third party, `Go and prepare an `erub on our behalf’ and, after he had prepared an `erub for the one while it was yet day 16 and for the other at twilight, 16 the `erub of the man for whom it was prepared while it was yet day was eaten up at twilight while the `erub of the man for whom it was prepared at twilight was eaten up after dusk, both 17 acquire the privileges 18 of `erub? 19 _ What a comparison! 20 There 21 it is doubtful whether twilight is day-time or night-time, a point that cannot be definitely determined; 22 but, in this case, if a house is to be regarded as a proper house in relation to the former it must be so regarded in relation to the latter also, and if it is regarded in relation to the latter as a gate-house it must also be so regarded in relation to the former. 23

(16) Of the Sabbath eve.

(17) Since it is uncertain whether twilight is to be regarded as day or as night.

(18) In the former case it is assumed that twilight is night and, since the `erub was in existence before twilight when the Sabbath commenced, the `erub is valid. In the latter case it is assumed that twilight is still day and, since the `erub was prepared before twilight and was still in existence when the Sabbath commenced, the `erub is valid. Now why, it is asked, if twilight is here assumed to be day for one individual and night for another could not a house also be assumed to be a gate-house for one and a proper house for another?

(19) Shab. 34a.

Notice Footnotes 16 - 18. These footnotes make quite clear just how the Jewish "religious authorities" push the facts around! For supporters of the Jewish explanation for Exodus 12:6 this is an absolutely devastating quotation!

When it suits them, then twilight belongs to the start of the day. And when it suits them, then twilight belongs to the end of the day!

Isn’t it obvious that when it suits them, then 3:00 p.m. represents the start of the evening. And at other times, when they have nothing to defend, then they will acknowledge that the evening is the period of dusk.

There are many hundreds of just such double-talk examples throughout the Talmud. At no stage do they ever accept God’s standards or God’s definitions! That becomes glaringly obvious when you examine the Talmud for yourself. Thus how God defines a day in Genesis chapter 1 never enters the discussion.

Keep in mind that this was written by Jews who understood Hebrew very well! Note that they do not base their understanding on any inherent linguistic features of the Hebrew words or expressions used!

They have simply "reasoned" regarding what seems expedient or suitable to them. And in so doing two men who each understood Hebrew as well as the other man, reach diametrically opposite conclusions ... one placing the period of twilight at the start of the day, and the other placing twilight at the end of the day!

Note the comment "overtaken by dusk". So here dusk is the first part of the new day. As Genesis chapter 1 tells us "and the evening and the morning were the first day", etc.

Note also that they are arguing about "a couple of feet" (i.e. from half a yard to less than 10 yards) beyond "a Sabbath day’s journey". How would someone possibly be "overtaken by dusk" and be only two or three feet outside the limit of "a Sabbath day’s journey", a distance he could easily cover in less than five seconds? The whole argument is extremely silly. But here it suits them to have dusk as the first part of the new day.

(1) E.V.: `at dusk’.

(2) This is why the evening tamid is before the Passover sacrifice. For in connection with the latter both these expressions are used: Ex. XII, 6: and the whole assembly . . . shall kill it at dusk (ben ha-‘arbayim); Deut. XVI, 6: thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering at even (ba-‘ereb).

(3) For only ben ha-‘arbayim is stated in connection with the former two, Ex. XXX, 7f: And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices . . . And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at dusk (ben ha-‘arbayim), he shall burn it, `ben ha-‘arbayim’ applying to both the burning of the incense and the lighting of the lamps.

(4) Ex. XXVII, 21.

Notice that the Talmud also translates the phrase "ben ha-‘arbayim" as "dusk". See footnotes (2) and (3).

Notice also from footnote 3 that "ben ha-arbayim" is the time when Aaron was to light the lamps. But that was not at 3:00 p.m.! That was only at dusk, after the sun had set.

So right here in footnote 3 the Talmud acknowledges that "ben ha-arbayim" refers to after sunset when the lamps were to be lit. This is another devastating quotation for those who accept the Jewish explanation for Exodus 12:6.

(7) Ex. XII, 6; lit., `between the evenings’.

Here the biased Jewish reasoning is again clearly exposed!

They acknowledge that the Bible says "... and the whole assembly shall kill it at dusk"! They don’t deny that "at dusk" is a correct translation of the Hebrew term used, also acknowledging that it literally means "between the evenings". But they reason that this only means that one cannot kill the lamb "before midday"! They imply that it is okay to kill the Passover any time after midday.

If Jewish scholars themselves admit that "at dusk" is a correct translation of the expression used in the Bible, how can non-Hebrew-speaking members of the Church of God possibly claim that the Hebrew expression refers to "before dusk"? Are people in God’s Church also going to define "dusk" as "any time after 12:00 noon"?

This quotation makes very clear that the Jewish reasoning about "after 12:00 noon" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hebrew expression "beyn ha-‘arbayim". They didn’t get this idea from the Hebrew text. No, they invented this idea of a late-14th Passover themselves, and then they asserted new meanings or applications for the Hebrew text.

Again, it is clearly stated that the Bible says that the congregation of Israel shall kill it at dusk!

I am trying to show you that we are not dealing with some isolated and unintentional or careless translation of the Hebrew! The Jewish scholars of the Talmud understand very well that the Bible states "at dusk"!

This has nothing to do with "how well we may be able to reconcile all kinds of statements in the Old Testament". It is simply a clear matter that the Bible refers to the Passover being killed at dusk, which the Jews acknowledge, but then twist to supposedly mean any time after 12:00 noon.

Understand that the Jews themselves in their writings don’t make a difference between "in the evening" and "at dusk" ... when it suits them, they apply both to mean any time after 12:00 o’clock noon.

Those of you who have accepted the Jewish reasoning that "the evening" can be a reference to the late afternoon ... do you also accept their reasoning that "dusk" can mean "any time after 12:00 o’clock noon"?

Surely we can see the specious reasoning that is employed in order to justify this Jewish tradition?

Note one other point in this quotation. Israel’s obligation to keep the Passover could, according to some teachers, be discharged by killing one single Passover animal for all the people. This is obviously contrary to the biblical instructions (Exodus 12:3 reads: "... they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers ..."). This idea is a blatant violation of Exodus 12:3.

Yes, I understand that there is only one real "Passover Lamb" (i.e. Jesus Christ); but the O.T. instructions are very explicit that each family was to kill a lamb. If Jewish religious leaders cannot agree on this, then they are totally unfit for being looked up to for spiritual understanding in any area of the Bible!

(7) Which includes the Sabbath.

(8) This offering is sacrificed on the Sabbath day, notwithstanding the fact that the labour involved many kinds of work expressly forbidden on that day. But only at the beginning. i.e., if the beginning of that sacrifice has to be made on the Sabbath. Of the Friday dusk-offering, however, the limbs must be smoked before the Sabbath. Since it belongs to Friday it would be desecration to continue it on the Sabbath. (9) Cf. supra 6b.

Footnote 8 shows that they understood that the "Friday dusk-offering" was really on the Sabbath. So they understood quite clearly that "the evening sacrifice" always took place at dusk, at the start of a new day. They understood that "evening sacrifice" refers to "dusk".

Whether references to the daily sacrifices place the expression "the morning sacrifice" before the expression "the evening sacrifice" or not has nothing to do with this! The Jewish understanding is quite clearly revealed in this footnote, namely, that the evening sacrifice took place after sunset!

I mention this because some people have wrongly tried to reason that the expression "the morning sacrifice and the evening sacrifice" implies that "the morning sacrifice" is at the start of the day, and "the evening sacrifice" is at the end of the day ... thereby supposedly making "the evening" a time before sunset.

This quotation is quite candid in showing that "the evening sacrifice" took place after sunset, when a new day had started! The "Monday dusk-offering" and the "Thursday dusk-offering" etc. were all performed after sunset, at the start of a new day. It is precisely for this reason that for the "Friday dusk-offering" they devised a custom to deviate from this norm ... on Fridays they started work on the "dusk-offering" before sunset, reasoning that this was better than doing the physical work involved after sunset on the Friday evening. They didn’t seem to understand 1 Samuel 15:22, which tells us: "to obey is better than sacrifice"! We need to obey God, rather than reasoning our way into doing something differently from the way God has instructed us to do it.

There is no justification in drawing any conclusions from the sequence of words in the expression "the morning sacrifice and the evening sacrifice", trying to imply that because of the sequence of words in this expression therefore "the evening" must be the few hours before the end of the day.

This quotation shows that only on a Friday evening did the Jews perform the "evening sacrifice" before sunset; on the other six evenings in the week this sacrifice was performed after sunset! So for six evenings every week they performed the sacrifice at the correct time that God had instructed; but for the Friday evening sacrifice they reasoned themselves into doing it at an earlier time than God had instructed. Their Friday evening sacrifice was thus not at the time that God had instructed.

(1) The Friday dusk-offering must be offered before Sabbath since the blood of the offering would become useless, invalidated, if not sprinkled before sunset.

(2) Only `with difficulty’ but never imperative, every attempt must be made to prepare the sacrifice in levitical cleanness. V. Supra 7b.

Notice footnote 1: they falsely reason that the Friday evening sacrifice, which they freely call "the Friday dusk-offering" (because the Hebrew uses the word for ‘evening’), should be made before sunset!

Note that this also once again shows that they understand that "dusk" starts at sunset!

Realize that for the other days of the week they understand that the "evening sacrifice" should be brought after sunset, at dusk! But for a Friday evening they use human reasoning to get to a different conclusion. I would call that "carnal reasoning"!

(28) This being the literal meaning of the Hebrew "beyn ha-arbayim". I.e., between the evening of the fourteenth (which he counts as until dawn) and the evening of the fifteenth, hence the whole day of the fourteenth.

Footnote (28) very clearly and very openly exposes the Jewish justification for interpreting "between the evenings" to refer to the late afternoon!

They interpret the expression "between the two evenings" as covering the whole 24-hour day of the 14th day of Nisan. That allows them theoretically to choose any part of that 24-hour period for conducting their Passover. And so they choose between noon and sunset.

Here is the point for us to understand:

In Exodus 12:6 God uses this expression to pinpoint the period between sunset and total darkness (i.e. the period of dusk or twilight). This was correctly understood by all Israelites in the days of Moses, and down throughout the whole Old Testament period.

But in New Testament times the Jewish sages took this expression to be a reference to the entire 24-hour day. They lacked understanding. This footnote in the Talmud exposes this lack of understanding. And with their lack of correctly understanding the God-intended application of the expression "between the two evenings", they then chose a late-afternoon Passover.

Note the logic in that footnote!

The expression "the evening of the fourteenth" simply must refer to the start of the 14th! This is because "the evening of the 15th" cannot refer to the end of the 15th! In this context both statements must refer to the start of each day.

Further, when they reason that "the evening of the 14th" means "from evening until dawn" (i.e. supposedly the whole night), then "evening" must again refer to the start of the 14th, because the dawn must still be on the 14th, on the same day. So they know that "evening", the time when the Passover was to be killed, must be at the start of a day.

This footnote reveals that the real Jewish justification for a late-14th Passover does not interpret the expression "between the evenings" to refer to "between noon and sunset" or "between 3:00 p.m. and sunset"!!

This footnote shows that the Jews simply interpret the expression "between the evenings" to refer to the entire 24 hours of Nisan 14! And that is in spite of knowing that it really means "dusk".

Can you still defend the Jewish custom of a late 14th Passover?

They know what "evening" means; and they know what "dusk" means. And they know what the biblical instructions refer to. But they justify their traditions by trying to make the expression refer to the whole 24-hour day!

Consider that some of the Jewish sages even claimed it was okay to slaughter the Passover on the morning of the 14th! While this was not the general custom, we should recognize that they all used the same lines of reasoning, that "evening" and "dusk" can mean things other than "evening" and "dusk"! How honest is that?

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 11b

(This quotation appears immediately before the previous one in the Talmud.)