(6) The question of an Aramaic Gos^iel ( Ur- Eoangdiam), while important chiefly in connexion with the Synoptic problem, bears closely upon that of the language spoken by Christ. If Christ spoke Aramaic, such a Gospel was to be expected, and at the same time its existence would furnish weighty proof at once of the prevalence or Aramaic and of the use of that language by our Lord. And the labours of recent critical scholars, if they have not conclusively established the existence of an Aramaic Ur-Evangelium, have at least made it niiich less open to question. Of special interest in this connexion is the series of articles in the Ex- positor (Ser. iv.), by Professor Marshall, on 'The Aramaic Gospel.' "The theory which Professor Marshall in these articles works out with great ability and skill is that the variant Greek w'ords in parallel passages of the Synoptic Gospels can be traced to one original Aramaic word ; and the
result of the application of his theory is that the Aramaic Gospel contained, speaking generally, the ministry of Christ in Galilee. That Professor Marshall's theory will ever find anything like general acceptance is perhaps unlikely. But whether or not it may be possible by his or any other method to recover Avitii certainty and to any extent the precise Aramaic words used by our Lord, there can be no doubt that Aramaic had the supreme honour of being the langu.age in which He gave expression to His imperishable thoughts.
Literature. — Pfannkuche, Language of Palestine, Clark's Cabinet Librarj", vol. ii. ; Roberts, Greek tlie Language of ChrUt and His Apostles, 1S8S ; W. H. Sinicox, Language of the NT, 1889 ; T. K. Abbott, Essays chieibj on the Oriqinal Texts of OT and NT, 1891, p. 129 ; A. Jleyer, Jesu Mutter- sprache, 1896 ; Dalman, The yVords of Jesus, Eng. tr. 1902 ; Schultze, Grain, der Aram. Muttersprache Jesu, 1899; Marshall, Expositor, Ser. iv. ii. 69 ft., iii. 1 ff.,109ff., 205 ff., 275 ff., 375 ff., 452 fif., iv. 208 ff., 373 ff., 435 ff., vi. 81 tf., viii. 176 ff. ; Exp. Times, iv. 260 ; Schurer, IIJP i. i., ii. ii. JamES YOUNG.
LANTERN {(pavds) occurs in Jn IS^ where the band of soldiers accompanying Judas is described as provided with lanterns and torches (see Lamp).
LAST DAY.— See Day of Judgment.
LAST SUPPER.— Although the relation of the Last Supper to the Jewish Passover is treated with more or less fulness elsewhere (see Dates, vol. i. p. 413 ff., and Lord's Supper (I.)), it appears advisable to handle the wliole subject in a special article.
The Paschal controversy, which agitated the first ages of Christianity (see CxVLENDAR), has only a general connexion Avith the inquiry on which we are entering. We note * that the trend of opinion at first was towards the view that Christ was cruci- fied on the 14tli day of the Jewish month Nisan, and therefore on the day on avIucIi the Paschal lamb was killed ; from which it follows that the Last Supper (whatever was its nature) preceded tiie Jewish Passover by several hours. In the 3rd cent, the view that our Lord kept the Passover with the Jews on the 14th, and was crucified on the loth, began to come into favour. When Ave approach the sacred records, Ave find that the first three Evangelists so express themselves, that, in the opinion of some, they represent our Lord as eating the Paschal Supper Avith His disciples on the night of His betrayal. It is certain tliat St. John (18-^) represents some of the Jcavs as not having eaten the Passover several hours later. On these prem- ises, there appears to be a discrepancy between the accounts in the sacred narrati\'es. When an honest attempt is made to arrive at a conclusion, a great authority on the history of Clirist's nuuist.y is compelled to confess his inability to solve tiie enigma. t By some it has been thought that Christ anticipated the day of the Paschal Supper, in oriler to eat it Avith His disciples ; J by others, that the lieads of the Jewish people deferred their Passover in order to have time to ajjprehend and condemn Jesus.§ The object of this article is to shoAV that the first three Gospels preclude the notion that the
* See art. ' Chrnnolocry ' (Turner) in Hastingrs' DB\. 411 f.
t Sec Sandav, art. ' Jesus Christ' in DB ii. 634b.
t This seems to be the view wliich Dr. Sandav, on the whole, favours ; see art. quoted iu preceding- note. For the view that the Last Supper was an anticipated Passover meal, resembling the ordinary Passover in form and order, and held before the statutory date, see nrtt. Mesus Cliristiis' (Zcickler) in PRE^, ix. p. 32'; ' Eucharist' (J. Annitasrc Roliinson) in EDi. col. 1419. A good summary of arguments and opinions is given by Ellicott in Lectures on the Life (f our f.ord. pn. 322, 323, nn.
§ The Passover might be deferred for a month for those who were legally debarred from observing it on the proper day (Nu 991-'), but there is no jirovision in the Law for postponing it for one day: this explanntion of the notion of the rulers is improbable iti itself, and contrai-v to their expressed intention (Mt 26-'') ; further notice of it is su;>er;iuons.