CKKOXOLOGY OF SEW TEST.
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 411
Si a^ott rp ijfjJfx^ t^ rpiro, Est 4^« firi <p6.yrrr€ nijSi TlifTt ^l rjfUpas Tpth vvicra. Kal jj^fXLv^ taken up in 5^ ( = 15* Vulg.) Koi iyiptro iv t^ ^m^P^ t^ TpirQ . . . ■repi(3d\ero -njy S6^(iv aCrr^s. (These exx. mostly from Field's admirable note on Mt 16-' — misprinted" — in hia Otium NorvicensCf iii. p. 7.)
8. But the day of the week must be combined ■with the day of the month before any further results can be attained. On what day, then, of the (Jewish) month did the Crucifixion fall ?
The passover was kept at the full moon of Nisan, the first month of^ the Jewish ecclesiastical year ; and the months being lunar and commencing with the new moon, the mil moon fell about the 15th. On the 14th, in the afternoon, the paschal lamb was killed, Ex 12* explained by Josephus, BJ VI. ix. 3, 6,t6 iydrrji Cipas fUxpts ivStKaT-qs^ and Philo (ed. Mangey, ii. 292) icard ^aij^^piav fws iavipas ; it was eaten on the evening of the same natural day, but as the Je\N'ish day began at sunset, that was already Nisan 15. On the 16th the first-fruits of the barley harvest were oirered or 'waved' before the Lord (Lv 23"-"; Jos. Ant. III. x. 5). The whole feast of unleavened bread lasted seven days, from the 15th to the 21st inclusive.
Whether the Crucifixion fell on the 14th or on the 15th, whether (that is) the passover by a few hours followed it or preceded it, has always been a question. For the present purpose, however, it is only an important one in so far as it may happen that in any one of the possible years Friday might be reconcilable with one but not with the other of the two days. But the observation of the Jewish months often cannot be restored with such absolute certainty that if Friday could be Nisan 14 in any particular year it could not be Nisan 15, or vice versd. Moreover, the arguments on each side (unlike most of the points treated hitherto) are well represented in accessible author- ities : see in favour of the 14th — Sanday, Author- ship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel^ ch. xii., or Westcott, Introduction to the Gosjicls^ appendix to ch. vi, : for the 16th — Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah f u. 479-^82 ; Le>vin, Fctsti Sacri^ p. xxxi; M'Clellan, New Testament^ pp. 473-494. No more then need be said here upon tne Gospels than that, while primd facie the evidence of St. John tells for the 14th and that of the Synoptists for the 15th, indications are not wanting in the synoptic narrative {e.g. the episodes of Simon of Cyrene and of the deposition from the Cross, Mk l^ai. 43. 4flj which confirm the Johannine view. Probably, here as elsewhere St. John in repeatedly implying that the passover was still future (13* irpb Si ttJj (opT^i Tou wdaxo., 13^ dyOpaaoy we Xfi^ia^v tx_op.€v tU riji' iopHjyf IS'*" tva firj ^avOuiaiv dXXA tpdydiaiv t6 rdffxoi) is intending to correct silently a false im-
Eression to which other accounts had, or might ave, given rise.*
For the decisive evidence of Christian antiquity, reaching back probably to St. Paul himself, in favour of Nisan 14, see oelow, p. 412.
In which years, then, between tlio already estab- lished limits A.D. 28-33, could Friday have fallen on the 14th — regard being also hau to the less probable 15th— of Nisan?
The matt«r is not so simple as it looks ; for It Is never possible to be Certain which day was re<;koncd as the new moon or
• The regular B3moptic use of ri wirx* 'or the supper on the evenlntf of Nisan 13-14 is potwibly Illustrated by passages in Philo, 9tf) r>ir l&iofj^t mmt xHf i«/7r^r, which seem to distinguish the «««-x« of the 14th from the k^ufMtt of the 16th-2l8t (ii. 278,
292, 293) : €.g. 0) r|r«^ l\ [iyn^] rw* h»$a.-ni^imt q Ha>j[»va.,
%\ m^ufjM.. (2) my\rau 31 li 9CLtii\u*{ fivfitL rirrxfim^uiiMMTV rev M<i*x. (3) rufaiWTU H r«7c ittr^m-Tupittt i*^ri) . . . m*vfAa.. Does 8t. Mark, Cf )i r* rar%dt s«) rk k^viut U4rm iC* itu4fitt4 (14^), imply a consciousoeae of this distinction 7 Contrast, however, Mt 2ei7, &lk 1413. Lk 221- 7.
flrat of any given month, and not alwaj-s possible to be certain which month was reckoned as the NL>an or first of anj given year.
(1) How was the beginning of a Jewish month fixed? Theo- retically, no doubt, by simple obsen'ation ; and since astronomers can calculate the true time of conjunction for any new moon, it is possible, by adding so many hours (not less than about 30) for the crescent to become visible, and by taking the first sunset after that, to know when each month ought to have begun, if the Jewish observations were accurately made. But wtnt was to happen when obsen'ation was impossible? Was the new month to be put off as long as eveify night happened to be cloudy? Were the Jews of the dispersion from Babylon to Home to be left ig^norant on what day the new month was com- mencing in Jerusalem? Elmpiric methods must have been qualifi^ by the permanent rules of some sort of calendar. It must at least have been recognised that, the average length of a lunation being 2<Ji days, no month could be less than 29 or more than 30 days.