The circumstances of the first Passover (Exod. xii. 6.) must evidently have been such as Philo describes ; and if we consider the vast multitude of victims which were required to be sacrificed on such occasions, a multitude which Josephus computed at 256,500 *, and the short space of time within which they must all have been sacrificed, which he states likewise at merely two hours, ἀπὸ ἐννάτης ὥρας, μέχρι ἑνδεκάτης; it is utterly impossible that so many could be offered within such a time, unless all were offered at once; that is, unless every master of a family was sacrificing and preparing his own victim at the same moment with another. I have been the more diffuse on this subject, with a view to anticipate a possible objection; viz. how our Lord could have celebrated his Paschal supper, out of the usual course, without attracting any particular notice. The existence of the custom in *This computation itself is probably below the truth; for 256,500, multiplied by ten, would produce the sum only of 2,565,000: as the amount of the persons who must have partaken in the Passover of U. C. 819, which Josephus states at 2,700,000. And that this statement is not beyond the truth may be collected from Bell. ii. xiv. 3, where the same amount is represented at not less than three millions. Now it is very possible that the precise sum of 2,565,000 might be called in round numbers, 2,600,000; but I do not see how, without a very great inaccuracy, it could be called 2,700,000; one hundred and thirty-five thousand beyond the truth. Unless, then, we should suppose that Josephus has fallen into this inaccuracy, it is necessary to conceive that he question rendered it easy so to do, unknown to any but confidential persons, the master of the house, and his own disciples. Secondly, though the Sanhedrim, in their consultation on the evening of Wednesday", came to the resolution indeed of putting Jesus to death, yet they concluded also not to effect the resolution, at least during the. feast; ἵνα μὴ θόρυβος γένοιτο ἐν τῷ λαῷ. The feast, as it would be useless to deny, must have been begun when the Passover day was arrived and past: hence if Jesus was apprehended on the day after that, he must have been apprehended in the midst of the feast. Where, however, is the proof of any intermediate change in the resolution of the Sanhedrim, which had come to a contrary conclusion? It cannot be said that the overture of Judas, though made directly afterwards, produced it; for that overture would rather confirm than alter the preexisting determination. The object of the Sanhedrim was twofold; to get possession of Jesus dóλo first, and to put him to death afterwards: and what they were at a loss about for a time was the first of these two things. The proposal of Judas, being the offer of a confidential disciple to betray his Master, clearly removed the difficulty upon this head: but they must still have stipulated with him that he should effect his engagement as secretly as possible, or St. Matthew, St. Mark, and especially St. Luke, would not say that, after concluding it, ἐζήτει εὐκαιρίαν τοῦ παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν AVTOîs άTEρ ŏxλov: which means, without trouble, tumult, or disturbance; and not, without a multitude, much less, the multitude. The original precaution, then, of not attempting the apprehension of Jesus during the feast, or in the open day before the people, was not abandoned even at last; as b Matt. xxvi. 3-5. Mark xiv. 1, 2. c Luke xxii. 6. the very circumstances of the apprehension itself prove. And this would still be in unison with the event, if our Lord was arrested on the night of the Thursday, and put to death on the morning of the Friday; before the feast was yet begun. Causas capitales, says Maimonides, absolvunt eodem die ad innocentiam, sed postero ad culpam d; that is, a criminal was to be tried on one day and executed on the next: and even this principle of Jewish jurisprudence seems to have been observed as far as the nature of the emergency would permit; our Lord having been tried in the night-time, and not delivered over to the governor until the morning. The Divine Providence might so order it, that the proposal of Judas should be made to the Sanhedrim before the feast, and neither during it nor after it; and the same Providence might likewise so order it, that the necessary opportunity for effecting his purpose should occur the very night before the feast, and neither earlier nor later. Now when he went out, as we shall see hereafter, upon receiving the sop, the night was somewhat advanced, but the Paschal ceremony was far from being over and he went out, as the rest of the company supposed, to buy what was wanted against the feast. He would go, then, as they supposed to the shops, or where such things were to be procured. If so, neither could it have been late in the evening on any day, nor could it have been the evening of the Passover on that day in particular. After sunset, on the evening of the Passover, both because of the sabbath which would then have begun, and because of the celebration of the Passover which would be going on, no shop would be open in Jerusalem, nor any dealings of buying or selling any longer practicable: all d De Jurejurando, xi. 8. Dithmari Annott. persons, both old and young, both male and female, both the inhabitants and the stranger, would then be simultaneously engaged until midnight at least; if they went out of their houses even before morning. It is certain, however, that Judas must have gone straight to the Sanhedrim, expecting to have access to it; and as he received from the Sanhedrim the force with which he accomplished his purpose, it is certain also that he must have obtained access to it. The members of that council, therefore, were either assembled at the time of his arrival, or easily got together afterwards; which renders it exceedingly improbable that they were previously engaged on their respective Passovers. The same thing is true of the band; all of whom, the cohort, the captains, and the servants, we may take it for granted, consisted of Jews; the former, of those who had the custody of the temple, the latter, of officers of the Sanhedrim. If so, these too would be bound to keep the Passover that night; and unless it had been already kept, or unless they had been purposely disturbed while keeping it, they could not have come on such an errand as this that night: it is not even probable that they would have been sent upon it. The young man also, spoken of by St. Mark, would not have been alone on the Paschal night, when all Jerusalem was divided into companies; nor abroad, so soon after midnight at the latest, when all those companies were in their respective homes. Nor would it, I think, have been expressly mentioned, that they, who brought our Saviour to the palace of the high priest, after they had brought him thither, made a fire on purpose against the cold: for if the night when they brought him had been the Paschal night, every household on that night must have sat up until a late hour, and fires would have been found burning all through it. These circumstances may appear trifling; but even these, on one hypothesis, will all be consistent and natural, and on the contrary supposition, inconsistent and unnatural. Nor can any hypothesis be true which does not account for every thing; nor accord with the least matters of fact as much as with the greatest. It is the criterion of truth alone, to apply alike to both. Thirdly, the attempts of Pilate to procure the release of our Lord were produced partly by a conviction of the innocence of Jesus, and partly by the necessity of compliance with a certain privilege of the feast. Into the origin of this privilege we have no data which would enable us to inquire. It could not be more ancient than the time of Coponius, when Judæa was first reduced to the form of a Roman province; and very probably did not continue longer than the time of Pilate; on whose demise the Jews became subject not to any new Roman procurator, but to a native king: nor is it unlikely that it both began and ended with the reign of Tiberius in particular*. Its nature, however, is very well ascertained by the language of the Evangelists themselves. Karà copτǹv, which means at every feast, or feast by feast, implies that the people had a right to the liberation of some one prisoner, of their own choosing, at the other two great solemnities as well as at the Passover. It was now the feast of the Passover, and Pilate reminded them of their privilege accordinglye; and they themselves, *From the notice which is thus taken of the fact, we may infer that none of the Gospelhistorians, not even St. Matthew, wrote before the privilege had fallen into disuse. If so, St. Matthew did not write before the first of Caius, U.C. 790; that is, for the first seven years after the Ascension, at least. e John xviii. 39 |