of an episode on the Passage of the Red Sea, from an epic poem by Rabbi Naphtali Hirts Wesseley, called non " (Shiri Tepereth), songs of exaltation. One specimen, descriptive of the passage prepared by Almighty power across the bottom of the sea, may suffice to give an idea of the style in which this miracle is treated : 'Their path is clear. The lowest inmost depth "Let herbs and fruits thy naked plains adorn!" Over the varied surface spread their charms: Arose; and when the rising sun had seen The briny flood with nought but sea-weed crown'd, The herbs and shrubs that clothed the new-form'd path. Which still defy the gnawing-tooth of Time.' Other passages and other poets might be cited, which the limits of this dissertation will not admit. Let the truly Biblical Hebraic compositions, written for the English Synagogues, for the service of their congregations on appointed public days of thanksgiving, prayer, fasting, and humiliation, by the learned Chief Rabbi, Dr. Adler, be remembered by all who have read them. EF CHRONOLOGICAL HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD Παρασκευή. Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Apologie der Evangelien und evangelischen Geschichte vom Standpunkt der Voraussetsungslosigkeit. Von KARL WIESELER, Licentiat und Privatdocent [now Professor] in Göttingen. Hamburg, Perthes, 1843. 8vo. § 1. WHOEVER will cast a discerning glance at the literature which, since the early times of Christianity, the important problem of harmonizing the Gospels has called into existence, must find that, however greatly individual opinions vary upon various points, they all agree in opposing the so-called synoptical narratives, as a unity, to that of St. John; thus reflecting a kind of dualism within the Sacred Volume itself. Whether this dualism, asserted or supposed, admitted or denied, but as yet never satisfactorily disproved, be real or merely apparent, is the momentous and all-absorbing question, on the ultimate and positive solution of which the future history of our religion must necessarily in a great measure depend. In Germany the conviction that such a dualism does, and undeniably does, exist, has of late years gained rapid ground: not only among those whom we are, perhaps, somewhat too apt to call infidels, but also among men alike distinguished for their genuine piety and their eminent learning. § 2. The most important work of an orthodox tendency which the modern press of Germany has produced on this subject, is the volume, whose title (A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels) we have placed at the head of this article. Its author, Professor Wieseler, is generally looked upon as a successful champion of the Faith. The more sincere is, therefore, our regret that we cannot bestow on his work as high a praise as we could have wished to do. Its merits, certainly, are considerable, and there are facts adduced and views developed in it which to many may appear both new and striking; yet in reviewing the Synopsis as a whole, we can hardly pronounce it to be much more than a valuable, though at the same time somewhat superficial, compilation, the original matter mixed up in it forming a series of those wild and untenable hypotheses, to which the German savants, notwithstanding their usually profound and solid acquirements, are so peculiarly given; and which never fail to injure the good good cause, which they are intended to support, in the exact proportion of their extravagance, and the amount of learning and ingenuity wasted upon them. §3. It is not, however, our intention to lay before our readers a general criticism of Professor Wieseler's work. We prefer selecting from among the numerous questions on which it treats a single subject, and, making his views on this subject the basis of our own remarks, to investigate it as thoroughly as the compass of an article and the limited extent of our powers will permit us. That we should have chosen for such a purpose the simple expression Tagaσxe may, at first sight, excite some surprise; but it will be seen from the sequel that the correct translation of this term vitally affects of all the apparent contradictions in our Gospels from which the theory of a dualism has sprung, the most important, because the most positive one-the asserted contradiction between St. John and the synoptical writers as to the day on which our Blessed Lord partook of his last supper with his disciples. Our measured space will not permit us to allude here to the various hypotheses by which it has been attempted to meet and explain this generally acknowledged difficulty; but we may venture to state that, without an exception, their united effect thus far has been but further to embarrass the already in itself embarrassing question. § 4. The New-Testament term aрaσxeun is in our version of the Bible rendered sometimes the day of preparation,' sometimes simply the preparation.' Luther has invariably translated it Rüsttag.' The Vulgate has 'parasceve' for it. 'It admits of no doubt,' Professor Wieseler writes, page 336, 'but that παρασκευή, without the adjunctive words τοῦ σαββάτου, was by the Jews, when expressing themselves in the Greek language, used as a common term for our Friday: e. g., St. Luke, xxiii. 54; St. Mark, xv. 42; St. Matthew, xxvii. 62; St. John, xix. 31, 42; and Josephus, Antiq., xvi. 6, 2 (even in an imperial decree). Compare also, in reference to St. Mark, xv. 42, the passage Judith, viii. 6, important as to the names and the character of the Jewish feasts. The ecclesiastical writers, likewise, express our Friday usually by aρaokεvý.' The latter fact does not apply to the question at issue (see § 12); and as the learned Professor, when stating that aproxεUÝ without the adjunctive words rou oaßßárov, signifies the sixth day of the week, thereby acknowledges that the term (which, in connection with those words, nowhere occurs) admits at least of a different explanation, he must have derived his reasons for the opinion he has adopted from the Scriptural and other passages to which he refers. Let us examine these passages. § 5. The imperial decree of Augustus, mentioned by Josephus, Antiq., 6 Antiq., xvi. 6, 2, releases the Jews from the duty of appearing in the public courts of justice on Sabbath days (which included not only the Sabbath proper, but also the Jewish high-feasts of sabbatical rank, comp. § 26) and Tỷ про Tαúτns параonεvñ áпо ὥρας ἐνάτης. But it is evident that napaoxevn does not, in this place, stand for either Friday' or the day of preparation;' firstly, on account of its construction with po rauTns, the highfeasts of the Jews at that period falling, as it might happen, on any of the week-days (Mishna, Pesach, vii. 10; Menach, x. 3; Chagiga, ii. 4, etc.); and secondly, because, contrary to the unequivocal mode of expression in use among the Romans, the words anò pas įvάrns would leave it uncertain whether the ninth (Jewish) hour of the night (about three o'clock in the morning) or of the day (about three o'clock in the afternoon) be meant. Undoubtedly the words of our text must be rendered ́ ́neither on sabbath-days, nor during the preceding preparation-time, after the ninth hour; for no other translation would impart to them a concise meaning (comp. § 25). § 6. A still clearer proof against Professor Wieseler's interpretation is furnished us by St. Luke, xxiii. 54.b Whether we adopt the common reading of this passage, xai nμégα žv καὶ ἡμέρα παρασκευή, or the decidedly better reading καὶ ἡμέρα ἦν παραOXEUS, and translate and the day was Friday;' or, and it was the day of Friday; or, and it was the day of the preparationday,' who would charge St. Luke with expressions like these for and it was the day of the preparation [time],' i. e. the day on which the preparation-time fell? The English version, and that day was the preparation,' is evidently erroneous; whilst both the German und es war Rüsttag,' and the Latin 'et dies erat parasceves,' are, in this instance, as evidently correct; but, it must be well observed, correct only because in our text the word nupa is expressly combined with napaonavn: a combination sufficient in itself to prove that the latter term, in the times of the Apostles, distinctly excluded the meaning of ' day,' whether embodied in the expression Friday' or 'preparation-day.' § 7. St. Mark, xv. 42, is the next passage quoted by Professor Wieseler. He says, p. 344, in reference to it, 'Here also the day of our Lord's crucifixion is called napaonɛun (Friday), which term is explained by the generally intelligible words ST προσάββατον. He would consequently translate, and now as μοι. . Καίσαρ Σεβαστός, ἀρχιερεὺς, δημαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας λέγει. ἔδοξέ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις θεσμοῖς. .. ἐγγύας τε μὴ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐν σάββασιν, ἢ τῇ πρὸ ταύτης παρασκευῇ ἀπὸ ὥρας ἐνάτης. » Καὶ ἡμέρα ἦν παρασκευῆς, καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκε. • Καὶ ἡδη ὀψίας γενομένης, ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευὴ (ὅ ἐστι [προσάββατον] πρὸς σάββατον), ἦλθεν Ἰωσὴφ, κ. τ. λ. the the afternoon [the evening] was advancing;' (we must bear in mind that the first Jewish evening, which is here meant, commenced at about 12 o'clock) 'because it was Friday, that is, the day before the Sabbath,' etc. But at once we feel perplexed by two serious scruples: the evening is said to have been advancing because it was Friday, a phrase void of all sense; and the Friday is precisely the Friday-a matter of course. Our English version and now when the evening was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath;' and Luther's translation, Und am Abend, dieweil es Rüsttag war, welcher ist der Vorsabbat,' are but little better than Professor Wieseler's. The Spanish rendering, Y quando se hizo ya tarde (pues era la Paresceve, que es la vispera del sábado), as well as the Latin, Et cum jam sero esset factum, quia erat parasceve, quod est ante sabbatum,' convey a more correct meaning; yet they also are far from expressing the true sense of the text. Who, when reading 'et cum jam sero esset factum,' would suppose that a time of the day were spoken of, corresponding to about 3 or 3 o'clock, on a summer's afternoon? object of our inquiry. But to return to the more immediate 6 Unless we assume the ine of St. Mark to have no aim whatever, it furnishes another incontestable proof that in the above passage, too, agaonun stands neither for Friday' nor for preparation-day,' but evidently for preparation-time;' because, if we render the words of our text, And now as the afternoon was advancing, for it was (during) preparation-time,' etc., we obtain at once-the latter embracing a determined period (see § 25) a sound sense; and even the preparation-time, being thus explained by the fore Sabbath,' might pass. Still an explanation, which would exactly correspond to that of our Saturday evening' by 'Sunday eve,' must always remain a critical obstacle; and we therefore unhesitatingly adopt, as Lachmann and Tischendorf have done before us, instead of gosáßßarov the reading Aрos σáßßatov. Then, taking in the sense of (as in the passages St. Luke, viii. 13; St. John, xiv. 27, etc.), we translate, And now as the afternoon was advancing, for it was (during) preparation-time (namely, the time of preparation for the Sabbath),' and our scruples are solved. To understand, however, the motive which induced the Evangelist to add to his narrative the latter remark, we must bear in mind: firstly, that on the Jewish highfeasts of merely a sabbatical character, like the Passover, certain occupations were not as strictly prohibited as on the Sabbath proper (Exod. xii. 16; Mishna, Megilla. i. 8; Jerus. Gem. Jevam. viii. 4, etc.); secondly, that yet those high-feasts, like the Sabbath, were preceded by a preparation-time (see § 26); and thirdly, |