On the whole, then, notwithstanding the express declaration of the law and of the Jlislma that the days of holy convocation were to be observed precisely as the Sabbath, except in the preparation of food, it is highly probable that considerable license was allowed in regard to them, as we have already observed. It is very evident that the festival times were characterized by "a free and jubilant character which did not belong, in the same degree, to the Sabbath, and which was idainly not restricted to the days that fill between the days of holy convocation (Lev. xxiii, 40; Deut. xii, 7; xiv, 20). it should also be observed that while the law of the Sabbath was enforced on strangers dwelling
PASSOVER
747
PASSOVER
among the Israelites, such was not the case with the law of the festivals. A greater freedom of action in cases of urgent need woidd naturally follow, and it is not difficult to suppose that the women who "rested on the Sabbath-day according to the commandment" had prepared the spices and linen for the entombment on the day of holy convocation. To say nothing of the way in which the question might be affected by the much greater license permitted by the school of Hillel than by the school of Shammai, in all matters of this kind, it is remarkable that we rind, on the Sabbath-day itself, not only Joseph (Mark xv, 43), but tlie chief priests and Pharisees coming to Pilate, and, as it would seem, entering the praetorium (Matt, xxvii, C2).
(r/.) Finally, it must be admitted that the narrative of John, so far as the mere succession of events is con- cerned, bears consistent testimony in favor of the last supper having been eaten on the evening before the Passover. That testimonj', however, does not appear to be so distinct, and so incapable of a second interpre- tation, as that of tlie synoptical Gospels in favor of the meal having been the paschal supper itself, at the legal time (see especially Matt, xxvi, 17; Mark xiv, 1, 1'2; Luke xxii, 7). Whether the explanations of the pas- sages in John, and of the difficulties resulting from the nature of the occurrences related, compared with the enactments of the Jewish law, be considered satisfactory or not, due weight should' be given to the antecedent probability that the meal was no other than the regu- lar Passover, and tliat the reasonableness of the contrary view cannot be maintained without some artificial the- ory, having no proper foundation either in Scripture or ancient testimony of any kind.
3. Ecidence of Later Writers. — There is a strange story preserved in the Gemara {Sanhedrim, vi, 2) that our Lord, having vainly endeavored during forty daj's to tind an advocate, was sentenced, and, on the 14th of Nisan, stoned, and afterwards hanged. As 'vo know that the difficulty of the Gospel narratives had been perceived long before this statement could have been written, and as the two opposite opinions on the chief C{uestion were both current, the writer might easily have taken up one or the other. The statement cannot be regarded as worth anything in the way of evidence. Other rabbinical authorities countenance the statement that Christ was executed on the 14th of the month (see Jost, Jiulenth. i, 404). But this seems to be a case in which, for the reason stated above, numbers do not add to the weight of the testimony.
Not much use can be made in the controversy of the testimonies of the fathers. But few of them attempted to consider the question critically. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v, 23, 24) has recorded the traditions which were in favor of John having kept Easter on tlie 14th of the month. It has been thought that those traditions rather help the conclusion that the supper was on the 14th. But the question on which Eusebius brings them to bear is simply whether the Christian festival should be observed on the 14th, the day tv y Bvtiv to npofSa- Tov 'loui)aioiQ TTpoijyoptvro, on whatever day of the week it might fall, or on the Sunday of the resurrec- tion. It seems that nothing whatever can be safely inferred from them respecting the day of the month of the supper or the crucifixion. Clement of Alexandria and Origen appeal to the Gospel of John as deciding in favor of tlie 13th. Chrysostom expresses himself doubt- fully l)et\veeu tlie two. St, Augustine was in favor of the 14th. Numerous patristic authorities are stated by Maldonat On Malt. xxvi.
Oil tliis question respecting the Lord's Supper, see, in addition to the works cited above, Robinson, IJarmony of the Gospels, and Bibliotheca Sncra for Aug. 1845; Tholuck, On John xiii; Stier, On John xii; Kuiniil, On Matt, xxvi; Neander, Life of Christ, § 265; Greswell, Harm, of the Evang. and Dissertations ; Wieseler, Chro- nol. Si/nopsis der vier Evany. ; Tischendorf, Syn. Evang. p. xlv ; Bleek, Dissert, iiher den Monatstuff des Todes
Christi {Beitrdge zur Evangelien-Kritih, 1846) ; Frisch- muth, Dissertatio, etc. {Thes. Theol. Philolog.) ; Haren- berg, Denionstratio, etc. (Thes. Noviis Theol. Phil, vol, ii); Eude, Dernonstratio quod Chr. in Ccen. aravpuxjiiK^ agnum paschalem non comederit (Lips. 1742); Ellicott, Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 320 ; Fairbairn, Uermeneutical Manual, ii, 9 ; Davidson, Introduction to the N. T. i, 102; Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 425 sq. ; Lewin, Easti Sacri, p. xxxi sq. ; Ebrard, Kritik d. evang. Gesch. p. 615 sq. ; Caspari, Chronol.-geogr. Ein- leif. p. 164 sq. ; Westcott, Infrod. to the Gosp. p. 335 sq. ; Stud, und Krit. 1832, iii, 537; Isenberg, Der Todestag des fferrn (Hannov. 1868; maintains that Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan according to the Roman reckon- ing). See Loun's Supper.