She also argues that Mark gives a precise sequence of events for "Palm Sunday", Monday, and Tuesday, but then leaps directly to the Passover meal.
According to the traditional dating, then, two days remain of which nothing is recounted.
The Passover, therefore, began only in the evening, and at the time of the trial the Passover meal had not yet taken place; the trial and crucifixion took place on the day before the Passover, on the "day of preparation", not on the feast day itself.
The second advantage emphasized by Annie Jaubert shows at the same time the weakness of this attempted solution.
She points out that the traditional chronologies (Synoptic Johannine) have to compress a whole series of events into a few hours: the hearing before the Sanhedrin, Jesus being sent over to Pilate, Pilate's wife's dream, Jesus being handed over to Herod, his return to Pilate, the scourging, the condemnation to death, the way of the Cross, and the crucifixion.
Jaubert sees here the solution to two problems: first, Jesus celebrated a real Passover meal, as the Synoptic tradition maintains; yet John is also right, in that the Jewish authorities, following their own calendar, did not celebrate the Passover until after Jesus' trial, and Jesus was therefore executed on the vigil of the real Passover, not on the feast itself.
Both the Synoptic and the Johannine traditions thus appear to be correct on the basis of the discrepancy between two different calendars.
For as mentioned earlier: trial and execution on the feast seem scarcely conceivable.