Изображения страниц


subsequently *. And with respect to the meaning of Tò IIάoxa, though it may have two significations, the one particular, to denote the Paschal sacrifice, the other general, to denote the Paschal feast; and though the former might possibly be used exclusive of the latter, the latter never could be used exclusive of the former. The word IIárxa could never be used for the complex of the Paschal feast, and not take in the day of the Passover in particular. The date therefore, πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ Πάσχα, can be understood of no term either earlier or later than the first day of the Paschal feast in general; the day of the Passover in particular. In this case, if the day of the Passover in particular was necessarily the fourteenth of the Jewish Nisan, the day of the arrival at Bethany, six days before that exclusively, or seven days before that inclusively, was necessarily the eighth of the same


Now the day of the Jewish Passover in the year of our Saviour's passion, as I am fully persuaded and as I hope to make it apparent hereafter, was the day upon which he suffered. This being the case, the day of the week on which he suffered was the fourteenth of Nisan, the day of the Jewish passover. But the day of the week on which he suffered was unquestionably the sixth, or Friday. If so, the fourteenth of Nisan, in the year when our Saviour suffered, coincided with Friday; and consequently so did the eighth with Saturday. It confirms this conclusion, that the fourteenth of Nisan, U.C. 783, A. D. 30, which is the true date of

* It must be admitted, I think, that the former of these two suppositions is the most natural and obvious mode in which a writer would express

himself; viz. reckoning backwards six days from the day of the Passover, to the day of the arrival at Bethany.

the year of the Passion, coincided with the Julian April 5: and therefore so did the eighth of Nisan with the Julian March 30: of which it has been argued elsewhere", and it will be further shewn hereafter, that the former fell out upon the Friday, and the latter upon the Saturday.

If we are right in these positions, the true date of our Saviour's arrival at Bethany, U. C. 783, A. D. 30, preparatory to the last Passover, was Saturday, March 30, on the corresponding day in the Jewish Nisan. It would seem, then, at first sight that he arrived on the Jewish sabbath. But this is no necessary consequence: for a Jewish day began with sunset and ended with sunset; and sunset, March 30, eight days later than March 22, the true date of the vernal equinox, would not be much earlier than 6. 30. P. M. It would be daylight, even after this, for one hour more; that is, for the whole of the first hour of the next Jewish day as such, the ninth wynμepov of Nisan, the beginning of the first day of a new week and if our Saviour, at the time of the expiration of the sabbath, that is, at sunset upon the eighth of Nisan, or the thirtieth of the Julian March-was within an hour's journey of Bethany, he might still arrive there on the evening of Saturday; yet not on the Jewish sabbath. And this I believe to have been actually the case.


For first, it has been shewn elsewhere that, at the point of time indicated by Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1, our Lord was not only in Peræa, but arrived at the confines of Judæa: that the question of the Pharisees concerning divorce, the next thing which those two Evangelists record, took place on the evening of one day, and the passage through Jericho, preceded by the

u Dissertation xii. 543, 544

v Lev. xxiii. 32.

w Dissertation xxxi. Vol. ii.

crossing of the Jordan, on the morning of the next. That the Jordan was crossed to enter Judæa must be self-evident; and that it was crossed in this instance at the usual ford, called Bethabara, in the neighbourhood of Jericho, may presumptively be collected from our Saviour's proceeding, directly after, through that city. For this was to take the usual course; that is, to journey by the regular high road from the Jordan to Jerusalem. If, therefore, the proceedings of one entire day, the day when our Lord entered Judæa and passed through Jericho, begin to be specified at Mark x. 17, which speaks of the resumption of the journey, confirmed by Matt. xx. 1, which implies it to have been resumed in the morning; then, unless at the commencement of that day it could be proved that Jesus was somewhere within a day's journey from Bethany, there is no reason to suppose that he would arrive there before the night.

Now according to the Jerusalem Itinerary the distance from Jerusalem to Jericho was 18 Roman miles; and the distance from Jericho to the Jordan was 5: the whole distance then from Jerusalem to the ford of the Jordan, according to this calculation, was 23. The same distance is reckoned by Origen *, ὡς πλατεῖ λόγῳ, at 180 stades from Bethany, or 195 from Jerusalem; which makes it 24 Roman miles and one third of a twenty-fifth. But according to Josephus, whose testimony ought to be the most credible of any, the true distance from Jerusalem to Jericho was 150 stades; and from Jericho to the Jordan, was 60. The whole distance therefore from Jerusalem to the Jordan was 210 stades; exactly an ordinary day's journey. And in the Jewish Mishna we find it represented as such z.

x Operum iv. 140. B. In Joh. tom. vi. 24. viii. 3. z i. 282. 2.

y Ant. Jud. v. i. 4. Bell. iv.

[ocr errors]

The only difference is that from the Jordan to Bethany the distance was fifteen stades or almost two Roman miles less.

But it is to be observed, that before Jesus crossed the Jordan he was somewhere in Peræa. It is also to be observed that the ford, where he crossed it, was somewhere in the Aulon or Perichorus of Jordan; the nature of which we have had occasion to describe elsewhere. The breadth of this Aulon was 120 stades, or 12 English miles, in all; and that it was equally divided by the Jordan, or that the part upon the east was as wide as the part upon the west of that river, appears from this fact; that the Jordan was sixty stades, or half the breadth of the Aulon, remote from the borders of the plain of Jericho on one side, and therefore must have been another sixty stades, or the remaining half of its extent, remote from the inhabited country on the other; and Abila, a city there situated, is placed accordingly by Josephus, at that distance from the banks of the river. Now our Lord, before he crossed the Jordan, had spent the night in Peræa. Where, then, may we presume, had he spent it? Not in this Aulon itself; for that is described as a desert; but where houses and villages at least were to be found. Now this would not be the case except on the very verge of the Aulon; nor within much less than sixty stades of the ford of the Jordan. It is very possible, then, that when Jesus set out in the morning of the day of his passage through Jericho, he was the whole breadth of the Aulon, or 120 stades, remote from that city; and therefore 255 stades, 32 Roman miles, remote from Bethany: a distance which was probably too great to be accomplished conveniently in one day. Or though we should not suppose that he was actually

a Ant. Jud. iv. viii. 1. v. i. 1.

32 miles distant from Bethany, yet if he was 28 or 30, that also would exceed, by three or four Roman miles, the measure of an ordinary day's journey.

It appears accordingly, that when Jesus had passed through Jericho he afterwards stopped with Zaccheus. This fact is enough to prove that the house of Zaccheus was somewhere between Jerusalem and Jericho; and if it was as near to the one as the other, or if it lay even midway between the two, it would be nine Roman miles only distant from Jerusalem; and seven only distant from Bethany.

Now when our Lord stopped with Zaccheus, I think there is reason to conclude that he was stopping for the night. Such at least is the natural inference both from his own words, σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι, and from the remarks of the multitude, ὅτι παρὰ ἁμαρτωλῷ ἀνδρὶ εἰσῆλθε καταλῦσαι *b. It must be obvious in any case that he stopped for the purpose of refreshment; and therefore about the time of some meal; which no one will suppose could be the morning's, at the hour of pwt, nor the midday's, at the fifth hour of the day and therefore, must have been the evening's, not earlier than the ninth t. Nor is it any objection

* The use of κaraλûσai, absolutely, in this instance, is one among the other arguments that Jesus was preparing to stay with Zaccheus for the night. Such is its classical signification, when so used. It occurs elsewhere in the Gospels, in that sense and in the Old Testament the Seventy often render by it, what means in the Hebrew, to tarry or abide all night.

†The father of the Levite, Judges xix. 9, tells him, accord


ing to the marginal version, that it was pitching-time, even then when he was preparing to set out. This recognises a stated time of the day, when travellers were accustomed καταλῦσαι, οι to stop for the night. Genesis xxvi. 17, Katêλvσev is the version of the Seventy, for what in the Hebrew is "pitched his tent."

Dr. Shaw informs us, that the constant practice of himself and his party was to rise at daybreak, set forward with the sun,

b Luke xix. 5. 7.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »