ology of Matt. 27: 62; where the Evangelist speaks of the Jewish sabbath as ἡ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν, the morrow after the preparation, that is, the next day after Friday. It is not easy to account for this mode of expression, except upon the supposition, that nagaσxevý was already in common use as a specific name for the sixth day; as much so, indeed, as the sabbath for the seventh day.

The reasons which operated to introduce a zoosáßßarov, or preparation for the sabbath, did not exist in the case of the other festivals, on which the preparation of food was not forbidden; Ex. 12:16. Nevertheless, what had become customary in respect to the sabbath, would naturally be imitated in other cases; and accordingly after the exile we find mention of the noorovμrvía, eve of the new moon, Judith 8: 6. In the Talmudists a passover-eve, non, is likewise spoken of. But what this could well have been, so long as the passover (paschal supper) was regularly celebrated at Jerusalem, it is difficult to perceive. The eve (7) before the passover festival could have included, at most, only the evening and the few hours before sunset at the close of the fourteenth of Nisan; like the primary usage in respect to the noóбaßBarov, as we have just seen. But according to all usage of language both in the Old and New Testament, those hours and that evening were the Passover itself, and not its preparation; unless indeed the paschal meal and its accompaniments be called the preparation of the subsequent festival of seven days; which again is contrary to all usage. It would seem most probable, therefore, that this mode of expression did not arise until after the destruction of the temple and the consequent cessation of the regular and legal passover-meal; subsequently to which event the seven days of unleavened bread became of course the main festival, and were introduced by a symbolical paschal supper (лáxα μrnμoVEVTIZóv) on the preceding evening. This latter might then easily come to be spoken of as the eve of the passover-festival.

But even admitting that a passover-eve (non) did exist in the time of our Lord; still, the expression could in no legiti mate way be so far extended as to include more than a few hours before sunset. It could not have commenced apparently before the ninth hour, when they began to kill the paschal lambs; see p. 406. On the other hand, the Hebrew term s, for which the Greek 7αqazɛvý stands in the New Testament, was employed, as we have seen, as a specific name in popular usage for

1 Buxtorf. Lex. p. 1765.

1845.]

Paschal Sabbath-why called "great.”

425

the whole sixth day of the week or Friday, not only by the Jews, but also by the Syrians and Arabs. Hence, when John here says: ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα δὲ ὡσεὶ ἔκτη, there is a two-fold difficulty in referring his language to a preparation or eve of the regular passover; first, because apparently no such eve or preparation did or could well then exist; and secondly, because, it being then the sixth hour or midday, the eve or time of preparation (supposing it to exist) had not yet come, and the language was therefore inapplicable. But if John be understood as here speaking of the weekly παρασκευή or προσάββατον, which was a common name for the whole of Friday, then the mention of the sixth hour was natural and appropriate.

We come then to the conclusion, that if John, like Mark in c. 15: 42, had here defined the phrase in question, he would probably have written on this wise: ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὅ ἐστι προoáßßarov rov пάoya, that is, the paschal Friday, the day of preparation or fore-sabbath which occurred during the paschal festival. In a similar manner Ignatius writes σάββατον τοῦ πάσχα, and Socrates σάββατον τῆς ἑορτῆς. This interpretation is further supported by the fact, that John, when speaking, in vs. 31, 42, of the self-same day of our Lord's crucifixion, employs nagaoxevý in this its current acceptation, of the weekly preparation. Especially is the mode of expression to be noted in v. 42, διὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, implying of itself that the weekly παρασκευή οι noooáßßarov, and no other, was an ordinary and well known public institution of the Jews.

D) John 19: 31 ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου, see p. 415. d. Here we may ask, Was such a paschal sabbath called "great" solely because the first day of the paschal festival fell upon it? or might it be so called for other reasons? The former part of this question is affirmed by those who maintain the alleged discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists; while of course they do not, because they cannot, deny the latter part. The coincidence of the first festival day with the sabbath, would certainly make the latter a great day; but the sabbath of the passover, even when it fell upon the second day of the festival, would still be a great day. The last day of the festival of Tabernacles is called "that great day;" though in itself not more sacred than the first day; John 7:37. comp. Lev. 23: 34-36. So pp, the calling of assemblies, Is. 1: 13, is rendered uέoa peyan by the Seventy, implying that in their estimation any day Ignat. Ep. ad Phil. c. 13. Socrat. Hist. Ecc. V. 22.

1

of solemn convocation was a great day. The sabbath then, upon which the sixteenth of Nisan or second day of the festival fell, might be called "great" for various reasons. First, as the sabbath of the great national festival, when all Israel was gathered before the Lord. Secondly, as the day when the first-fruits were presented with solemn rites in the temple; a ceremony paramount in its obligations even to the sabbath. Thirdly, because on that day they began to reckon the fifty days before the festival of Pentecost, Lev. 23: 15 sq. In all these circumstances there is certainly enough to warrant the epithet "great," as applied to the sabbath on which the sixteenth of Nisan might fall, as compared with other sabbaths.-There exists, therefore, no necessity for supposing, that John by this language meant to describe the sabbath in question as coincident with the fifteenth of Nisan or first paschal day.

The investigation thus far, as it seems to me, presents a fair and natural interpretation of the four main passages adduced from John's Gospel. Nothing has been assumed, and nothing brought forward, except as founded on just inference and safe analogy. The strongest of all these passages is doubtless John 18:28; and had this not existed, the others probably would never have been relied upon as affording ground for an attempt to overthrow the credibility and authority of one Gospel or of three.-The other considerations above presented have still less force.

E) John 13: 27-30; see p. 415. e. When Jesus said to Judas: "That thou doest, do quickly," some of the disciples thought he meant to say: " Buy what we have need of sis tηv ¿oorýv for the festival." Here no discrepancy with the other Evangelists could ever have been alleged, except by referring doorý to the paschal meal, which it never signifies.2 The disciples thought Judas was to buy the things necessary for the festival on the fifteenth and following days. If now our Lord's words were spoken on the evening preceding and introducing the fifteenth of Nisan, they were appropriate; for it was already quite late to make purchases for the following day. But if they were uttered on the evening preceding and introducing the fourteenth of Nisan, they were not thus appropriate; for then no haste was necessary, since a whole day was yet to intervene before the festival. This passage, therefore, so far as it bears at all upon the question, instead of contra

1 See above, p. 408. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Joh. 19: 31. Reland Antiqq. Sac. 4. 2. 4. p. 227.

2 See above, p 418. A.

1845.]

Was a judicial act lawful on the Sabbath?

427

vening the testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, goes rather to support it.

F) There remains the objection, that a public judicial act, like that by which Jesus was condemned and executed, was unlawful upon the sabbath and on all great festival days.' This consideration has at first view some weight, and has been often and strenuously urged; yet it is counterbalanced by several circumstances which very greatly weaken its force. The execution itself took place under Roman authority; and therefore does not here come into account. And as to the action of the Sanhedrim, even admitting that the prohibitory precepts cited above from the Talmud were already extant and binding in the times of the New Testament,-a position in itself very doubtful, -yet the chief priests and Pharisees and Scribes, who composed the Sanhedrim, are everywhere denounced by our Lord as hypocrites, "who say, and do not; who bind heavy burdens upon others, but themselves touch them not with one of their fingers ;" Matt. 23: 1 sq. Such men, in their rage against Jesus, would hardly have been restrained even by their own precepts. They professed likewise, and perhaps some of them believed, that they were doing God service; and regarded the condemnation of Jesus as a work of religious duty, paramount to the obligations of any festival. Yet in fact, the first and holy day of the festival did not demand the same strict observance that was due to the sabbath. On this day they might prepare food; which might not be done upon the sabbath; Ex. 12: 16. comp. Ex. 35: 2, 3. 16: 22 sq. On this day too, the morning after the paschal supper, the Jews might return home from Jerusalem, whatever the distance; an extent of travel not permitted on the weekly sabbath; Deut. 16: 6,7. Further, in the time of our Lord, the practice of the Jews at least, if not their precepts, would seem to have interposed no obstacle to such a judicial transaction. We learn from John 10: 22, 31, that on the festival of Dedication, as Jesus was teaching in the temple, "the Jews took up stones to stone him." On the day after the crucifixion, which, as all agree, was the sabbath and a "great day," the Sanhedrim applied to Pilate for a watch; and themselves caused the sepulchre to be sealed, and the watch to be set; Matt. 27: 62 sq. A stronger instance still is recorded in John 7: 32, 37, 44, 45. It there appears, that on the last GREAT DAY of the festival of Tabernacles, the Sanhedrim having sent

1 See above, p. 416. f.

out officers to seize Jesus, "some of them would have taken him, but no man laid hands on him;" so that the officers returned without him to the Sanhedrim, and were in consequence censured by that body. The circumstances show conclusively, that on this last great day of that festival the Sanhedrim were in session and waiting for Jesus to be brought before them as a prisoner. Nor was it merely a casual or packed meeting, but one regularly convened; for Nicodemus was present with them; v. 50. And finally, according to Matt. 26: 3-5, the Sanhedrim, when afterwards consulting to take Jesus and put him to death, decided not to do it on the festival; why? Because it would be unlawful? Not at all; but simply "lest there should be an uproar among the people." Through the treachery of Judas they were enabled to execute their long cherished purpose without danger of a tumult; and the occasion was too opportune not to be gladly seized upon, even on a great festival day.-These considerations seem to me to sweep away the whole force of this objection; on which Scaliger and Casaubon, as also Beza and Calov, laid great stress; and which Lücke has again brought forward and urged with no little parade.

Some other minor considerations, formerly advanced by those who hold that Jesus was crucified before the passover, are examined and refuted by earlier writers; particularly by Bochart.1 As however these are no longer brought forward by the more recent advocates of that view, it is not necessary to dwell upon them here.

Such then is a general review of the passages and arguments, on the strength of which the alleged discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists in respect to this passover has usually been maintained. After repeated and calm consideration, there rests upon my own mind a clear conviction, that there is nothing in the language of John, nor in the attendant circumstances, which upon fair interpretation requires or permits us to believe, that the beloved disciple either intended to correct, or has in fact corrected or contradicted, the explicit and unquestionable testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

VIII Early Historical Testimony.

On the other hand, some circumstances in the early history of the Christian church seem to favour the idea, that among the

1 See Bochart, Hieroz. lib. II. c. 50. p. 569 sq.