All this, however, seems forced, and contradicts the vsus loquendi (see Thiele, in Neves krit. Journ.v. 129 sq.). The explanation of " the prejiaration of the Passover," also, by the Sabbath of the Passover (comparing Ignat. ad Philip, c. 13), cannot well be accepted; for Ignatius, a Christian writer, simply calls the Saturday before East- er the preparation for Easter, which is altogether anal- ogous to the preparation of the Passover, in the usual sense; nor indeed is the reference certain (Bleek, Op. cit. p. 119). It would seem that Greek readers would un- derstand this phrase {TrapaaKtv;) roh tt.) only of the preparation for the Passover. It would require good proof to lead even a Jew to understand it as an abridged way of saying " the preparation for the Passover-Sab- bath." But suppose this proof discovered, how could John use this mode of speech, intelligible to none but Jews, in his (iospel V
(('.) John xix, 31. " That Sabbath-day was an high day" — I'liAtpa /.ityciXi]. Any Sabbath occurring in the Passover week might have been considered '"a high day," as deriving an accession of dignity from the fes- tival. But it is assumed by those who fix the supper on the 13th that the term was applied owing to the 15th being "a double Sabbath," from the coincidence if the day of lioly convocation with the weekly festival. Those, on the other hand, who identify the supper with the paschal meal, contend that the special dignity of the day resulted from its being tliat on which the omer was offered, and from which were reckoned the fifty days to Pentecost. One explanation of the term seems to be as good as the other.
(_/'.) The difficulty of supposing that our Lord's ap- prehension, trial, and crucifixion took place on the day of holy convocation has been strontfly urged, especially by (ireswcll {Dissert, iii, 150). If many of the rab- binical maxims for the observance of such days which have been handed down to us were then in force, these occurrences certainly could not have taken i)lace. But the statements which refer to .Jewish usage in regard to legal proceedings on sacred days are very inconsist- ent with each other. Some of them make tlie difficulty equally great whether we suppose the trial to have
taken place on the 14th or the 15th. In others, there are exceptions permitted which seem to go far to meet the case before us. For example, the Mishna forbids that a capital offender should be examined in the night or on the daj' before the Sabbath or a feast-day (San- Itedrim. iv, 1). This law is modified by the glosses of the Gemara (see the notes of Cocceius in Surenhusius, iv, 220). But if it had been recognised in its obvious meaning by the Jewish rulers, they woidd have out- raged it in as great a degree on the preceding day (i. e. the 14th) as on the day of holy convocation before the Sabbath. It was also forbidden to administer justice on a high feast-day, or to carry arms {Yom Tob, v, 2). But these prohibitions are expressly distinguished from unconditional precepts, and are reckoned among those which may be set aside by circumstances. The mem- bers of the Sanhedrim were forbidden to eat any food on the same day after condemning a criminal (Bab. Gem. Sanhedrim, quoted by Lightfoot on Matt, xxvii, 1). Yet we find them intending to "eat the passover" (John xviii, 28) after pronouncing the sentence (Matt, xxvi, 05. GO). The application of this prohibition to the point in hand will, however, hinge on the way in wliich we understand it not to have been lawful for the Jews to put any man to death (John xviii, 31), and therefore to pronounce sentence in the legal sense. If we suppose that the Eoman government had not de- prived them of the power of life and death, it may have been to avoid breaking their law, as expressed in tSan- hedrim, iv, 1, that they wished to throw the matter on the procurator. (See Biscoe, Lectures on the A cts, p. 166 ; Scaligers note in the Critici Sacri on John xviii, 31 ; Lightfoot, Ex. Ileb. Matt, xxvi, 3, and John xviii, 31, where the evidence is given which is in favor of the .lews liaving resigned the right of capital punishment forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem.) It was, however, expressly permitted that the Sanhedrim might assemble on the Sabbath as well as on feast-days, not indeed in their usual chamber, but in a place near the court of the women (Gemara, Sanhedrim). And there is a remarkable passage in the jMishna in which it is commanded that an elder not submitting to the voice of the Sanhedrim should be kept at Jerusalem till one of the three great festivals, and then executed, in ac- cordance with Deut. xvii. 12, 13 (Sanhedrim, x, 4). Nothing is said to lead us to infer that the execution coidd not take place on one of the days of holy convo- cation. It is, however, hardly necessary to refer to this, or any similar authority, in respect to the cruci- fixion, which was carried out in conformity with the sentence of the Koman procurator, not that of the San- hedrim.
But we liave better proof than either the Mishna or the Gemara can afford that the Jews did not hesitate, in the time of the Koman domination, to carry arms and to a|">prehend a prisoner on a solemn feast-day. We find them at the feast of Tabernacles, on the " great day of the feast," sending out officers to take our Lord, and rebuking them for not bringing him (John vii, 32- 45). St. Peter also was seized during the Passover (Acts xii, 3, 4). And, again, the reason alleged by the rulers for not apprehending Jesus was, not the sanctity of the festival, but the fear of an uproar among the multitude which was assembled (]\Iatt. xxvi, 5).