On all grounds, then, both of philology and history, the conclusion remains firm that the testimony of John in respect to the passover need not be, and is not to be, understood as conflicting with that of the first three evangelists.

IX. Other methods of Conciliation reviewed.

Among all those who have in every age held the view that our Lord was crucified before the Jewish passover, the idea seems never to have been entertained, that the apparent diversity of testimony between John and the other evangelists afforded any ground for questioning the authority or inspiration of either. On the contrary, the endeavour has ever been, until recent times, so to interpret the language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or else that of John, as to bring their statements into harmony with each other.

1. The earliest and perhaps most current mode of explanation in the Greek and Latin churches, was that indicated in the extract from the Chronicon Paschale above given,* viz., that Jesus on the evening after the thirteenth of Nisan celebrated, not the Jewish passover, but a special paschal supper, a zása ἀληθινὸν καὶ ἀντίτυπον, the antitype of the Jewish passover, in order to institute the Lord's Supper in connection with it, and that he himself on the fourteenth of Nisan was offered up for mankind as the true paschal victim. This view is likewise found in the fragments of Peter of Alexandria, preserved in the preface of the Chronicon Paschale, and in other Greek writers; and has been adopted in modern times by B. Lamy and Toinard, by Calmet and Deyling, and especially by Gude. † The insuperable objection to this view is the clear and decisive testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which has been already stated and considered. ‡

2. Another mode of explanation assumes that Jesus did indeed eat the Jewish passover, although not at the same time with the other Jews. To account for this supposed difference of time several hypotheses have been brought forward, none of which are tenable even per se, and much less in opposition to the clear language of the first three evangelists. They follow here in the order of time :

(a) The Jews, it is said, following the calculations of their calendar, had deferred the beginning of the passover for one day; while our Lord, according to the letter of the law, ate the paschal supper on the evening after the true fourteenth

+

Page 377, above.

See the Harmonies of Lamy and Toinard; Deyling Obss. Sac. i. p. 273; Gude Demonstr. quod Christus in cœna sua cravering agnum paschalem non comederit. Lips. 1733, 1742.

See above, p. 361 sq.

day of Nisan. In support of this theory, or rather conjecture, the "de Júd of Luke xxii. 7 is particularly urged. So Scaliger and Casaubon.*

(b) The modern Karaites, who are thought by some to be descended from the Sadducees, determine the time of the new moon by its first appearance; the other Jews, by astronomical calculation. Now, this same diversity, it is said, may have prevailed in the time of our Lord; and thus the Sadducees, and Jesus with them, have celebrated the passover that year a day earlier than the rest of the nation. So L. Cappell, and especially Iken. But here, too, the whole hypothesis is gathered from the air. The Karaites are not known to have had any connection whatever with the Sadducees; the new moon was never determined by astronomical calculation so long as the temple stood; and had such been the rule of the Pharisees then, as the conjunction of the sun and moon necessarily precedes the appearance of the new moon by a day, the celebration of the Pharisees must have taken place a day before, and not a day later. And why, moreover, should Jesus have kept the passover with the Sadducees rather than with the great majority of his nation?

(c) Jesus may have celebrated such a passover as is kept by the Jews of the present day, a πάσχα μνημονευτικόν, not a πάσχα Jú, that is, consisting of merely a lamb killed in the ordinary manner, with unleavened bread,-a voluntary passover, not one prescribed by law. So Grotius, Hammond, and Le Clerc. § But such a mode of celebrating the passover could not exist, and would have been unlawful, especially in Jerusalem itself, so long as the temple was standing, where the victims were always to be killed.

(d) Our Lord, it is said by some, foreseeing that the vengeance of his enemies would overtake him before the close of the fourteenth of Nisan, when the regular paschal supper was to be eaten, celebrated it one day earlier in his character of Messiah, as thus having power over the law. || But of all this there is no trace in the New Testament.

Indeed, this whole theory of an anticipative passover, in whatever way explained, is totally irreconcilable with the exact and definite specifications of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the day on which our Lord sent his disciples

Scaliger, Emendat. Temporum 6. p. 531; Casaubon, Exercitt. Antibaron. 16. 13. p. 426 sq.

Ikenii in Dissertt. Philol. Theol. ii. pp. 337-471. See also this view stated in Bochart Hieroz. ii. 50. p. 564; Kuinoel in Matt. xxvi. 17. C.

See Bochart 1. c.; Winer Bibl. Realw. ii. p. 240.

§ Grotius in Matt. xxvi. 18; Hammond and Le Clerc in Mark xiv. 12.

So J. H. Maius de Tempore Pasch. Chr. ultimo, 1712. Seb. Schmid de Paschate

p. 398. Kühnoel ad Matt. xxvi. 17. F. Comp. Ideler Chronol. 1. p. 521.

to prepare the passover was the first day of unleavened bread, the day when it was necessary (ds) that the passover should be killed.-(Matt. xxvii. 16; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7.)*

3. A later hypothesis attempts to remove the difficulty, by assuming that the paschal lamb was legally to be killed and eaten, not at the close of the fourteenth of Nisan, but at its commencement, that is, at the close of the thirteenth day, and in the subsequent evening; so that the whole fourteenth day would intervene between the paschal supper and the festival of unleavened bread, which legally began on the fifteenth day. So first Frisch, and after him Rauch. + But this hypothesis is in direct contradiction to Numb. xxxiii. 3; as also to Exod. xii. 6; Lev. xxiii. 5; Numb. ix. 3, 5. ‡ Nor does it even remove the main difficulty, for it does not touch the question respecting John xviii. 28, but leaves that passage, the most important of all, to be explained as we have done above.

It is painful thus to dwell upon these shifts of great and learned, and often pious, minds, to escape from a supposed difficulty which, in fact, does not exist. Still more painful is it to find professed teachers of the Bible pressing the alleged difficulty to an extreme, in order to overthrow the authority of that Holy Book, and venturing sometimes upon assertions like that of De Wette, when he affirms that "the important contradiction between John and the other evangelists remains firm, and all attempts to remove it are false." § We hold, on the contrary, that the four evangelists all testify to one and the same simple truth, and that there exists among them no contradiction. The more we have examined the more has our conviction been strengthened, that the testimony of John, fairly interpreted here, as well as elsewhere, is not only supplementary to, but confirmatory of, that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

X. Literature.

The following are among the more important works which treat in some detail of the subject of this article. The list, however, is by no means complete; neither is that given by Hase in his Leben Jesu, § 124.

J. J. SCALIGER, Opus de Emendatione Temporum. fol. Genev. 1609, &c. p. 531.

I. CASAUBON, De rebus Sacris et Ecclesiast. Exercitt. xvi. ad Baron. Prolegom., &c., fol. Lond. 1614, &c., p. 426 sq.

*See above, p. 362.

+Frisch Abhandl. von Osterlamm. Lips. 1758; Rauch in Studien u. Kritiken, 1832, iii. p. 537 sq. translated in Bibl. Repos. for 1834, vol. iv., p. 108 sq. Contra, Gabler in Neusten Theol. Journ. iii. p. 433 sq.

See above, p. 355 sq. Bochart Hieroz. ii. 50. p. 560.

§ Handb. zu John xiii. 1.

382 Discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists.

J. CLOPPENBURG, Ep. de Controversia inter Baron. et Casaub. de Agno Paschali; in his Opp. Theol. tom. i. Amst. 1684.

L. CAPPELL, 'Eixpois ad amicam se inter et Cloppenb. epist. collationem de ultimo Chr. Paschale, &c. Amst. 1644. Also in Cloppenb. Opp. Theol. t. i.

S. BOCHART, Hierozoicon, lib. ii., c. 50, p. 560 sq. ed. Leusden. -Comparatively little that is new has been brought out on either side since Bochart.

J. FRISCHMUTH, Diss. utrum Agnum Paschalem Salvator eodem die cum Judaeis comederit, &c. Jenæ 1673. Also in Thesaur. Theol. Philol, t. ii. Amst. 1701-2.

D. PETAVIUS, De anno et die Dominica Passionis. In his Annot. ad Epiph. Col. 1682.

A. BYNAEUS, De Morte Jesu Christi, libri iii. 4to. Amst. 1691-98.

B. LAMY, Harmonia sive Concord. quatuor Evang. 1689.

Par.

Also, Commentarius in Harmon. 2 tom. Par. 1699. Traité hist. de l'ancienne Pâque des Juifs, où l'on examine à fond la question: si J. C. fit cette Pâque la veille de sa mort. Par. 1693.

S. LE NAIN TILLEMONT, Lettre au Père Lamy sur la dernière Pâque de notre Seigneur. In his Mémoires pour servir à l'hist. Ecclesiast. Tom. ii. App.

Also, Harmonié ou Concorde Evangel..

suivant la me

thode et avec les notes de feu M. Toinard. Par. 1716.

H. WITSIUS, Diss. an Christus eodem quidem cum Judaeis die, sed non eâdem diei parte, ultimum suum pascha manducaverit. In his Melett. Leidens. p. 421 sq. Herb. 1717.

J. H. MAIUS, De tempore Pasch. Chr. ultimi. Giessen 1712. A. CALMET, Diss. de la dernière Pâque J. C.

S. DEYLING, De J. C. die emortuali. In his Observat. Sacrae, p. i. Lips. 1735.

G. F. GUDE, Demonstr. quod Chr. in cœna sua orangwainy Agnum Paschalem non comederit, 4to. Lips. 1733. Also, Ed. 2, ab objectionibus Ikenii vindicata. Lips. 1742.

C. IKEN, Diss. de tempore celebrate a Serv. ultimæ cœnæ paschalis. Brem. 1735.-Diss. ii. qua difficultates contra sententiam ds. adstructam moveri solita diluuntur, P. i., ii. Brem. 1739. All these are found also in Iken's Dissert. Phil. Theol. tom. ii. ed. Schacht, Traj. Bat. 1749, 1770, Diss. 9-11. Also, Diss. qua contra Gudium demonstratur, cœnam Jesu Christi Graugwoμov vere paschalem fuisse. Brem. 1742. Also in Dissert. Phil. Theol. tom. ii. diss. 12.

J. FR. FRISCH, Abhandlung von Osterlamm und dem letzten Osterlammstage Christi. Lips. 1758.

J. P. GABLER, Ueber den Anfang des Passahfestes bei den alten Juden, in his Nat. Theol. Journ. b. iii.; also in his Klei

nere Schriften, b. i.-Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Passahmahls Jesu, in Nat. Theol. Journ. b. ii., Kl. Schrr. b. i.-Ob Jesus wirklich das Osterlamm gegessen habe? Ibid.

C. G. BRETSCHNEIDER, Probabilia de Evangelio Joannis. Lips. 1820, p. 102 sq.

L. ÚSTERI, Comm. crit. in qua Evang. Joannis genuinum esse ex comparatis IV. Evv. narrationibus de cœna ultima et passione Chr. ostenditur. Turici 1823.

K. G. W. THEILE, Ueber die letzte mahlzeit Jesu. In Winer's Krit. Journ. b. ii. p. 153 sq.-Noch etwas über d. letzte Mahlz. Jesu. Ibid. b. v. p. 129 sq.

H. E. GUERIKE, Versuch einer Vereinigung der evang. Relationen über d. letzte Mahlz. Jesu. In Winer's Krit. Journ. b. iii. p. 257 sq.

J. H. RAUCH, Ueber d. letzte Passahmahl u. s. w. In Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1832. Heft. 3, p. 537 sq.-English: On the time of our Lord' last Passover and Crucifixion. In the Biblical Repository, 1834, vol iv. p. 108 sq.

M. SCHNECKENBURGER, Chronologie der Leidenswoche, in his Beitrr. zur Einleit. in N. T. Stuttg. 1832.

W. L. DE WETTE, Bemerkungen zu Stellen des Evang. Johannis. In Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1834. Heft. 4, p. 939 sq. See also the Commentaries on John by CALVIN, LAMPE, KUINOEL, PAULUS, LÜCKE, THOLUCK, H. A. W. MEYER, DE WETTE, &c. &c.

ART. IV.-Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, von GUST. FR. OEHLER, u. s. w. Stuttgart, 1845. 8vo, pp. 95. THE expression, Theology of the Old Testament, is not a familiar one to English ears. The idea which it represents is perhaps not much more so to English minds. Certainly the thing holds no adequate place, if it have any place at all, in our theological literature. We hardly admit even a Biblical, as distinguished from a Systematic, or from a Church Theology; although in regard to the first, and the last, especially, there is a simple and obvious difference, logically at least, even if not practically, in the point of departure and the methods pursued, if not in the results attained, between a theology which shapes itself by the teachings of the Bible, and a theology which takes its form from the faith of the church. These may, in point of fact, entirely harmonise. The standards deemed regulative of orthodoxy may coincide precisely with the utterances of Holy Writ. And in that case, the theologian who undertakes to