more important inquiry here, however, is, whether, as for on, the corresponding Greek form for on ne bo also, may not be positively traced; and we venture to answer it in the affirmative. Let us, in the first place, compare the passage Matt. xxvi. 17-19, with 2 Chron. xxx. 21-22, and we shall find that the expressions

r

paysty =) אכל את המועד Tolet ro rduoys, and - עשה את חג המצות

Tò ά¤¤¤), are there used in a sense and in a manner so perfectly analogous, as to render their identity, according to the usage of both languages, in the highest degree probable. This probability is still confirmed, on our considering the passage of St. Matthew by itself. When (ver. 17) the disciples ask the Lord where he would desire them to make the necessary preparations for him Qaye Tò άoxa, and the evangelist (ver. 19) adds, that they did as they were commanded and prepared rò nάoxe; it admits of no doubt that, in either passage, the mere killing and preparing of the paschal lamb cannot be, and that, in the latter, the preparing the paschal repast is, meant; but that evidently the words of the former sentence have a still wider meaning. Were this not the case, St. Matthew would, we have every reason to assume from his writing (ver. 19), nai тoíμμxσav rò пάoxa, have also (ver. 17) said, που θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι τὸ πάσχα, avoiding the especially in this connection-superfluous term payev. Besides, we may naturally infer that on the morning preceding the passover, the disciples of Christ, far from anticipating the approaching death of their master, asked not for his commands merely for the beginning of, but for the entire passover-day. For these reasons, it appears to us, therefore, more than probable that the expression payev To пάoxα (ver. 17) is to be taken in the sense of 'to keep the pass

over.

The preceding argument, however, is but intended to serve as a support to the positive proof which follows, and which in itself is of a character to exclude every reasonable objection, inasmuch as the meaning of the Greek form ποιεῖν το πάσχα = to keep the passover,' is subject to not even the shadow of a doubt. We find, namely, instead of the expression moιε тo máσxα, St. Matthew

4 Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, λέγοντες αὐτῷ, Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Υπάγετε εἰς τὴν πόλιν πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, καὶ εἴπατε αὐτῷ, Ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει, Ο καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστι· πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου. Καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ ὡς συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς δ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἡτοίμασαν τὸ πάσχα.

: ויעשו בני ישראל הנמצאים בירושלים את חג המצות שבעת ימים בשמחה גדולה ומהללים ליהוה יום ביום הלוים והכהנים בכלו עז ליהוה וידבר יחזקיהו על לב כל הלוים המשכילים שכל טוב ליהוה ויאכלו את המועד שבעת הימים מזבחים זבחי שלמים ומתדים ליהוה אלהי אבותיהם :

xxvi.

xxvi. 18 (see note q), in the parallel passages, St. Mark xiv. 14* and St. Luke xxii. 11, the expression QAYET TO пάox used; the identity of both forms being thereby positively proved.

§ 35. We have, consequently, ample reason for interpreting the payev To Toxx (St. John xviii. 28) in the sense just stated. Accordingly the Jews went not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might keep the Passover;' and every doubt, whether the expression be thus reconcilable with the harmony of the Gospel narrative must disappear. Nor could, as the antagonists of that harmony assert, the exclusive object of the Jews be to keep themselves undefiled for the paschal repast on the evening of the 15th Nisan: the law imposed on them yet many other duties to be discharged on the (same Jewish) day. But, independently of this, would not the mere consideration of the social enjoyments which that day presented, have made them anxiously avoid any transgression of the law, in consequence whereof they would have had to renounce those enjoyments? A Christian father, or any member of his family, would hardly, on Christmasday, absent himself from his social-board, without the most urgent necessity.

But in our case, such considerations on the part of the Jews could not well exist, except on the morning of the feast itself, because on the preceding morning there was, at all events, the possibility of their again purifying themselves in time for the Passover; the entering a Gentile house we have every reason to believe upon the authority of Maimonides, fully supported by Judith (xii. 1-10), being one of those defilements which lasted only until sunset, and were washed off by a simple bath. Still, on Passover-eve, it certainly could not but be an obstacle of sufficient consequence to be most anxiously avoided.

§ 36. It has further been urged against the synoptical narrative that, because Simon the Cyrenean, who, according to St. Mark (xv. 21) and St. Luke (xxiii. 26) was compelled to bear, part of the way, the cross of our Lord, was just then returning from the fields (or, as some suppose, from labouring in the fields), it is evident the crucifixion must have taken place on a common week-day. Thus it not unfrequently happens; the main point of a case is overlooked, and a secondary incident laid hold of. Simon-was compelled to bear the cross after Jesus. What right had the Jews to compel him? Why was he compelled? Because, tired him

* Καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον, λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, Που θέλεις ἀπελθόντες ἑτοιμάσωμεν ἵνα φάγῃς τὸ πάσχα... καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Υπάγετε εἰς τὴν πόλιν .. καὶ . . . εἴπατε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ, Ὅτι ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει, Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμα, ὅπου τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου φάγω .... Καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ . . . καὶ ἡτοίμασαν τὸ πάσχα.—Mark iv. 12-16.

...

self,

self, he had, whether for pleasure's or duty's sake, taken a long walk? or because, on account of the approaching feast, he had worked hard in the fields to finish his task previously to its commencement? Most assuredly not; but because he had done the one or the other on a feast-day, thereby rendering himself culpable of a transgression of the law. On a common week-day thousands of Jews, had it but been to hasten the eagerly desired spectacle, would have readily undertaken what on a feast-day even the poorest of them refused to do. Then the crowd, accompanying the Lord, is met by an already defiled transgressor of the law, and upon him they force the further unlawful task. For the rest it is not necessary to assume that Simon had been labouring in the fields: he might only have exceeded the Sabbath-day's journey (Acts i. 12; Gem. Eruv. iv. 42). Under all circumstances the incident itself speaks decidedly in favour of the harmonistic view.

§ 37. The last objection against this view, which we shall notice, is, that the Talmud expressly states, firstly, that no judgment was delivered on feast-days; and secondly, that no person assisting at the passing of a sentence of death by the Synedrium, was allowed to take any food whatever during the remainder of the day. We are far from wishing to throw a doubt upon the testimony of the Talmud on such a point; but it ought to be shown, in the first place, that at the time of our Lord's death, the Jewish Synedrim possessed the power to pass a sentence of death on Jesus; and in the second place, that it actually did pass that

sentence.

Independently of other circumstances, it is an undoubted fact, that at the period in question, the provinces of Judea and Samaria were subject to the immediate government of the Romans. Jesus, being born in Bethlehem, could, therefore, legally be judged only by the Roman procurator. True, when the Jews, in answer to one of Pilate's questions, represented our Lord to be a Galilean, Pilate sent him to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of the latter province; but the Jewish prince, repelling the lie, sent Jesus back to his lawful judge.

According to the Evangelists also, our Lord was not even taken before the Jewish Synedrim, probably because of the very reason that no sitting took place on Passover-day. On the contrary, he is first drawn to the private dwelling of Annas, and thence to the private dwelling of the high-priest Caiaphas. Here the synedrists and elders certainly assemble, and thus constitute a kind of tribunal, which, though in the synoptical accounts actually styled ouvédgov, was yet, in reality, nothing else than a private tribunal of synedrists and others, which neither possessed the power of the publicly and legally assembled Synedrim, nor was subject to its

rules.

6

rules. For this reason too, the same synedrists, who, according to Professor Wieseler (p. 401 seq.), and the prevailing erroneous opinion, had, in their character of Christ's lawful judges, already passed their sentence of death upon him, and merely proceeded to the Roman procurator, to submit the same to the latter for his confirmation, appear before Pilate, suddenly transformed into simple accusers, holding our Lord, certainly according to their law, deserving of death; but in answer to Pilate's charge- Take him then, and judge him according to your law!' (he was, consequently, not as yet judged according to that law), replying, You know we want the power to sentence him to death' in order,' St. John adds, that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die;' for the Jewish mode of punishment in the case of Christ was stoning, the Romans alone crucified. Had Jesus, therefore, been put to death upon a Jewish sentence, merely confirmed by the Roman procurator, he ought to have been stoned; and, actually, the Jewish tradition, though in contradiction with other parts of the Talmud, relates that our Lord, after vainly endeavouring for the space of forty days, and by the instrumentality of a public herald, to find a defender, was sentenced, and as a matter of course on the fourteenth Nisan, sentenced by the Sandedrim, stoned and thereupon hanged (Gem. Sanhed. vi. 2). Here there is but one way open for us; we must choose between the Gospel and the Talmud-between the contemporary narrative of St. John, simple, clear, and convincing, and fully supported by the testimony of profane history; and the Jewish tradition, collected several hundred years later, in contradiction with itself, and bearing the imprint of fiction upon its very face.

$38. The two latter questions do not, strictly speaking, come within the range of our present inquiry (and for which reason we have contented ourselves to point out their most prominent features), inasmuch as our aim was to prove, not the historical credibility, but the harmony of the Gospel narratives regarding the day of our Lord's crucifixion, with a view to the immediate object of our investigation, and in order to confirm its result. In how far this result may be calculated to assist in finally solving the great problem alluded to in the introduction to this article, we must leave for the judgment of our learned readers to decide.

G H

RECENT APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

1. An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy, in three books. I. On the Covenants. II. An Exposition of the Visions of the Prophet Daniel. III. An Exposition of the Revelation of St. John, &c. By SAMUEL LEE, D.D., late Regius Professor of Hebrew, &c. &c. &c., Cambridge, 1849. 8vo. pp. cxxvi. 509.

2. Lectures on the Revelation. By the Rev. WILLIAM RAMSAY, Crieff. With a Diagram of the scheme of the Prophecy. 8vo. pp. 499. Edinburgh, 1849.

6

3. The Apocalypse Interpreted in the light of The Day of the Lord. By the Rev. JAMES KELLY, M.A., Minister of St. Peter's Episcopal Chapel, Queen's Square, St. James's Park. Vol. I. 12mo. pp. 426. London, 1849.

4. Lectures on Prophecy. By Rev. JAMES KELLY, M.A., &c. Third edition. London, 1848.

5. Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial? By the Rev. DAVID BROWN, A.M., St. James Free Church, Glasgow. Second edition, with large additions. Post 8vo. pp. 499. Edinburgh, 1849.

6. The Spiritual Reign: An Essay on the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. By CLEMENS. Second edition. Revised and Enlarged. 12mo. pp. 206. London, 1849.

7. The Harmony of the Apocalypse with other Prophecies of Holy Scripture, with Notes, &c. By the Rev. WILLIAM HENRY HOARE, A.M., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Royal 8vo. pp. 227. London, 1848.

8. The Opening of the Sealed Book in the Apocalypse, shown to be a symbol of a future republication of the Old Testament. By RICHARD NEWTON ADAMS, D.D., Lady Margaret's Preacher in the University of Cambridge. 8vo. pp. 230. Cambridge, 1838.

9. Notes forming a Brief Interpretation of the Apocalypse intended to be read in connection with the Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Ezra, and St. John.' By JAMES HATLEY FRERE, Esq., originally communicated by the author, and now published by permission. 8vo. pp. 163. London, 1850. 10. Die Offenbarung des Heiligen Johannes, fur solche die in der Schrift forschen erlautert. Von E. W. HENGSTENBERG. Erster Band. Berlin, 1849.

PASSING by the minor and less important diversities of interpretation which characterize the different prophetical systems of the

present