Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

by some of our ablest Biblical scholars, is certainly quite sufficient to solve the difficulty under consideration. Nevertheless it seems to us unnecessary to rest the explanation on the use of language among the Greeks and Romans. For we believe that the sense we have ascribed to the words of Saint John, is conformable to the common use of language, even among the Jews. The festival days, no doubt, were reckoned, according to law, from sunset to sunset: but this mode of reckoning does not appear to have found expression in the common language of the people. Let us examine, for a moment, the practice of Moses himself, in the Pentateuch. When explaining the law, he makes it clear that the feast of the Pasch began with the observance of the Paschal rite, on the evening of the fourteenth. Strictly speaking, therefore, the Paschal meal was eaten on the festival day. Yet, over and over again, we find the Paschal rite referred to one day, and the festival to the next. "The fourteenth day of the month, at evening, is the Pasch of the Lord. And the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread." Again: "On the fourteenth day of the month is the Pasch of the Lord. And on the fifteenth day, the solemn feast." It appears, then, that Moses speaks of the Paschal rite as falling on the fourteenth, and the festival on the fifteenth. Does Saint John go farther than this, when he represents the evening of the Paschal meal as "before the festival day"?

There is another illustration of the subject, perhaps even more strictly to the point. The Hebrew people, having kept their first Pasch on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, set out on their journey into the desert, early on the morning of the fifteenth. This fact is thus related in the Book of Numbers:-"The .children of Israel departed from Rameses, on the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after the Pasch." Now it was surely open to Saint John to represent the evening of the Pasch as "before the festival day", when Moses represents the festival day as "the day after the Pasch."

Finally, we have distinct evidence, in Josephus, that the same mode of speaking still prevailed among the Jews in the time of the Apostles. For he says, "On the fifteenth day the solemnity of the Azymes succeeds the solemnity of the Pasch." From this we may infer that he would not hesitate to speak of the Paschal rite as taking place before the festival of the Azymes.

See Exod. xii. 17-19.

4 Numb. xxxiii. 3.

Levit. xxiii. 5, 6.

3 Numb. xxviii. 16, 17. 5 Joseph, Antiq. lib. iii. cap. x. § 5. See this question ably treated by Langen, Die Letzten Lebenstage Jesu, pp98-110.

The next difficulty we have to meet is founded on the statement of Saint John, that when the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate, on the morning of the Crucifixion, they would not themselves go into the Prætorium, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might cat the Pasch." These words, it is argued, plainly convey that the Jews had yet to eat the Paschal meal; and therefore, that they had not eaten it the evening before. This argument, we freely confess, would be unanswerable, if it were shown that by the Pasch is here meant the Paschal lamb. But it must be remembered that other victims, offered during the Paschal solemnity, were likewise called by the name of the Pasch. This is sufficiently evident from the well known passage in Deuteronomy: "Thou shalt sacrifice the Pasch to the Lord thy God of sheep and of oxen; thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it."2 And that the word continued to be used in this sense, at the time of our Lord, is abundantly proved from the Rabbinical writings.3

Now we know that it was usual, on the first day of the Paschal solemnity, to offer a very special sacrifice, known as the Chagigah, or festive thank-offering. The victim might be taken from the flock or the herd: it was slain at the door of the sanctuary: certain portions were then burned, and other portions were given to the priest what remained might be eaten by the person who had made the offering; and he generally invited his friends to join him. Thus the Chagigah

became the occasion of a social and festive meal.1

Those who were legally unclean were forbidden to partake of the Chagigah: and nothing could have been more natural than that the Jews, on the morning of the festival day, should have been careful to keep themselves free from legal defilement, that they might not be excluded from it. Now there can be little doubt that the Chagigah was one of those offerings commonly known under the name of the Pasch. And, therefore, we may fairly suppose that Saint John, in the passage before us, refers to the eating of the Chagigah, and not to the eating of the Paschal lamb.5

Nay more there is intrinsic evidence that our interpretation is the more probable of the two. The Jews would not go into the Court of Pilate, lest they should be defiled and prevented from eating the Pasch. Now, in fact, this uncleanness

1 John, xviii. 28.

2 Deut. xvi. 2, 3. See also II Paral. xxxv. 8, 9. 3 See Patrizzi, De Evang. Diss. 1. n. 28; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Mark, xv. 25, ani John, xviii. 28.

See Smith. Dict. of the Bible, passover, p. 717; Robinson's Harmony, p. 156. * See Langen, Die Letzten Lebenstage Jesu, pp. 111-117.

VOL. IX.

30

would not have been a practical hindrance to their eating the Paschal lamb, but it would have been a practical hindrance to their eating the Chagigah. The act in question, of going into a heathen's house, induced but a slight uncleanness, which could be removed by a simple evening ablution. Therefore if the Paschal lamb were to be eaten that evening, the uncleanness might have been easily got rid of before the time for the meal had arrived. But the victim of the Chagigah was slain early in the day, and eaten before the hour of the evening ablutions. Consequently any uncleanness incurred in the morning would have effectually excluded the Jews from all share in this social festivity.1

The third difficulty is likewise taken from Saint John, who calls the day of Crucifixion "the Parasceve of the Pasch." Now, the word Parasceve, in Greek apaσken, signifies literally a preparation. Hence the Parasceve of the Pasch would seem to mean the preparation, or day of preparation, for the Pasch; that is, the day before the Pasch, on which it was necessary to prepare those things that were required for the festival. Consequently, the day of the Crucifixion was not the festival day, as we have supposed, but the day before it.

It is quite true that the word Parasceve, if we looked only to its etymology, might fairly be understood to mean, simply, the day of preparation; and the Parasceve of the Pasch would then certainly be the day of preparation for the Pasch. But the precise meaning of words is to be learned rather from common usage than from considerations of etymology. And we hope to show, from the use of this word Parasceve in the Gospel, that it meant, not a day of preparation in general, but the day of preparation for the Sabbath; in other words, the sixth day of the week, or Friday. If this be so, then the Parasceve of the Pasch would mean the Friday of the Pasch, that is, the Friday that fell within the seven days of the Paschal solemnity.

Saint Mark tells us very clearly what is the meaning of Parasceve. He says that, when evening was come, Joseph of Arimathea went boldly to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus, "because it was the Parasceve, which is the day before the Sabbath”—ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον.3 Words could hardly be found to express more clearly what the Jews understood by the Parasceve. It was the 1 See Patrizzi, De Evang. Diss. 1. n. 29; Langen, 115-7; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in John xviii. 28; Robinson's Harmony, p. 158. John, xix. 14. 3 Mark, xv. 42.

day before the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the week, or Friday.

No such distinct definition of the word Parasceye is given by the other Evangelists,-who, indeed, could not be expected to define a word that must have been generally understood at the time in which they wrote,-but they pretty clearly convey the same meaning, at least implicitly. Saint John writes: "The Jews, therefore, because it was the Parasceve, that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." The reasoning of this passage is very evident: Because it was the Parasceve, it was necessary to take away the bodies at once; otherwise they would remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day. It is assumed, then, that because this day was the Parasceve, the next day was the Sabbath; an assumption which would not be lawful unless Parasceve meant Friday.

As

We find the word next introduced in the account of our Lord's burial. After describing the sepulchre in the garden, near the place of Crucifixion, Saint John says: "There, therefore, on account of the Parasceve of the Jews, they laid Jesus, because the sepulchre was nigh at hand." if to say: On account of the Parasceve, they did not carry the body to a distance, but laid it in the sepulchre close by. But why this haste on account of the Parasceve ? Was it because the Parasceve was followed by the Sabbath? or was it because the Parasceve was followed by the Pasch? The text before us does not say but the question seems to be answered by Saint Luke, who concludes his account of the interment with the words: "And that day was the Parasceve, and the Sabbath drew on." The close connection of these two clauses would seem to convey, that because it was the Parasceve, the Sabbath was approaching and we are no longer left in doubt why there was need of a hasty interment, on account of the Parasceve of the Jews.

[ocr errors]

Again, Saint Matthew, recording how the Jewish authorities, on the Saturday after the Crucifixion, demanded a guard from Pilate for the sepulchre of our Lord, writes thus:-" And on the next day, which is after the Parasceve, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate."4 About the substantial sense of these words there is no dispute. Saint Matthew wants to fix attention on the circumstance that this was the day on which the body of our Lord was lying in the

1 John, xix. 31. 'John, xix. 42. 3 Luke, xxiii. 54.

Matt. xxvii. 62.

tomb; and since it was well known that the Crucifixion took place on the Parasceve, he marks this day as the one that followed the Parasceve. The clause, then, has just the same force as if it ran thus: "On the next day, that is, the day after the Crucifixion." But while we fully accept this explanation, it seems to us that the mode of expression chosen by Saint Matthew fits in much better with the meaning we attach to the word Parasceve than it does with the meaning against which we are contending. We can understand how this Saturday might naturally have been referred to as the day after the Friday, that is, the well known Friday of the Crucifixion. But if it were itself the festival day of the Pasch, would it not be strange to describe it as the day after the day of preparation for the festival? This latter mode of speaking would be pretty much the same as if one were now, in relating an occurrence of Christmas Day, to say that it took place on the day after Christmas Eve.

We have now brought under notice every text of Scripture in which the word Parasceve occurs, and we may briefly sum up the results at which we have arrived. Passing over the text which is the subject of discussion, we have first, the definition of Saint Mark, who explains what is meant by the Parasceve, and says it is "the day before the Sabbath." This is exactly our definition, too. Next, we have the argument of Saint John, that because the day of Crucifixion was the Parasceve the next day was the Sabbath. From this we infer that the Parasceve was, of necessity, followed by the Sabbath; and, therefore, that the Parasceve was the eve of the Sabbath, and not the eve of a festival in general. Thirdly, we have two parallel passages, one from Saint Luke, the other from Saint John, which, taken together, strongly suggest, though perhaps they do not quite demonstrate, that the close of the Parasceve implied the approach of the Sabbath. Lastly, we have the text of Saint Matthew, in which, to say the least, the sense would be perfectly well preserved if the word Friday were simply put in the place of the word Parasceve.

Besides these positive arguments, there are some considerations of a negative character not undeserving of notice. First, there is absolutely no example of the word Parasceve being applied to any day except Friday. It is used six times in Scripture; and, in every instance, the day referred to is, in point of fact, a Friday. On this point all are agreed. Secondly, there is no evidence whatever to prove that the day before a festival was called a Parasceve, by the Jews. No doubt, certain preparations were required for a festival, as

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »