ge from Hosea. He does not think it suits the threat there expressed ; cf. Nowack, Arch. ii. 155,
2). In Is 30” the allusion to the Passover was formerly considered (Dill. Del. δέ ad.) to be beyond
question, but at present it is thought by many others to refer to the night preceding the New Year’s feast (see art. TIME; cf. Duhm, Com. p. 203 ; Budde, ZA W, 1891, p. 200).
2. The Historical Writings (pre-exilic). — Here we find our first reference in 2 Καὶ 23° ‘And the king commanded all the pearls, saying, Keep the Passover unto J” your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant. Surely there was not kept such a Passover from the days of the jade. that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of
srael, nor of the kings of Judah; but in the eighteenth (cf. 22%) year of king Josiah was this Passover kept to J” in Jerusalem.’ There seems little doubt that this celebration under Josiah was novel, above all else, in following the law in Dt 16, and thus being celebrated at the central sanctu-
. Such a fact would give ample reason for the extraordinary character assigned to it. The extreme brevity of the notice may be due to later curtailment (cf. Benzinger, ‘Kénige,’ in Kurzer Handcom. 194ff.). This is the only ce pn reference to a Passover before the Exile. There are, to be sure, notices in 2 Ch (8% (ἢ) 30. 35) of Passovers during this time, but these very probably reflect the usages of the writer’s own age, and cannot be classed along with the passage in 2 Κα, The most that can be πα τισι from them is that the Chronicler may have found in his sources mention of Passovers on the occasions where he gives his fuller descriptions.
3. The Historical Writings (post-exilic).—In Ezr 6 ® (in Heb.) we have an account of how the returned exiles celebrated the feast. The Levites killed the lambs at this time, not only for them-
* On meaning, herbs used, etc., cf. Dill.-Rys. Com. Ex, p. 1171; Nowack, Arch. il. p. 178, ἢ. 4; and Tract Pesachim, Dr. ἡ, M. Patton, in conversation, expressed it as his opinion that the herbs represented an original vegetable offering the
pastures of the herds.
PASSOVER
selves, but for the priests and the rest of the com- munity as well. This is also made to be the case, in part at least,in2Ch. There in ch. 30 is a de- scription of a Passover in Hezekiah’s reign. For this the king sends out an especial summons (v.?) ; and since they could not arrange for it in the first month it is held in the second (Nu 9), as is also the feast of mazzéth (v.%). It is explained that it is because some were not purified according to the law, that the Levites kill the lambs for them (v.27, but cf. ν.}8). The priests receive the blood from the Levites and sprinkle it on the altar. An exception is made to the usual requirements, and all present are allowed to eat the Passover, although not purified according to the law. The following feast of seven days is extended yet another seven; and we are told that since Solo- mon’s time such a festival had not been held in Jerusalem (v.**). 2Ch 35! gives an extended description of the same Passover under Josiah, mentioned in 2 K 23. In this instance the impli- cation seems to be that the Levites kill the lambs for all (v.°). The priests receive the blood and sprinkle it on the altar (v.") as before, and as was usual in the case of other sacrifices. The Levites skinned the lambs, and apparently the other sacri- ficial animals as well (vv."-1*%). Here the writer tel's us that since the days of Samuel the prophet no Passover like to this one had been kept. This same account with modifications is reproduced in the opening chapter of 1 Es. (For a comparison of the text of 2 Ch with the Greek of 1 Es see ZAW, 1899, p. 234 ff.).
C. Résumé.—We have thus in our OT Canon notices that take us down to the Greek era, and range back over documents falling within a period of some six centuries. For the earlier ones there are only the briefest notices, which do not justify many deductions, even if cpu ac in their present form. But it is extremely probable that our feast continued to be observed during all this time in the Southern, even if not so generally in the Northern kingdom. Many of the rites mentioned by the later writers were certainly of very ancient origin. In Dt, in the last quarter of the 7th cent., we get on undisputed ground. In this first extended account, the strong emphasis on the historical significance of the Passover is especially marked. It commemorates the emancipation from Egypt, the day of the nation’s birth. The domestic character, which it eee possessed originally, disappears, but not the individual idea, which is so far retained that we still have separate sacri- fices. There continues to be room for much of the spontaneity and joyousness that belong to a volun- tary celebration. At this time it would seem it either stood by itself or introduced the magzgéth feast as later.—We find our next notices after a half century in the ideal portrayal of Ezekiel. Here the memorial significance gives ἫΝ to the piacular conception which grows out of Ezekiel’s exalted view of J”s holiness, The individual element disappears in the collective idea of the nation. Thus it comes that the Passover loses its distinctive character, and is taken up and em- bodied in the general class of sacrifices. It is accurately dated so as to fit into his scheme of the sacred year. All this falls within Ezekiel’s vision of Israel’s future restoration, and so his notice serves to emphasize the importance of the Passover in the religious life of the people. From a his- torical point of view, the account is not so much valuable in itself as it is in marking the transition from Dt to the priestly document.