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. 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? But to return to the more immediate

6

object of our inquiry.

6

6

The

Unless we assume the zei of St. Mark to have no aim whatever, it furnishes another incontestable proof that in the above passage, too, agzoneυn 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 gosάßßarov the reading πpòs σáßßatov. Then, taking in the sense of T (as in the πρὸς σάββατον. %T 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,

6

thirdly, that in the year of our Lord's crucifixion, the Passover falling on a Friday, two great feast-days at that time immediately followed one another. Under such circumstances the simple expression during preparation-time' might, by Gentile Christians, at least (comp. § 27), have been interpreted of either the Passover or the Sabbath; and, with the view to obviate a misunderstanding of this kind, the evangelist adds in parenthesis (ὅ ἐστι πρὸς σάββατον), thereby imparting to the whole sentence that degree of conciseness which it is his evident aim to give to it.

§ 8. Remarkable,' Professor Wieseler writes, p. 417,

' are the words of St. Matthew, xxvii. 62, τn dè éπaúρiov, žτLS ÉσTì μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν ; because the less important παρασκευή is here used to denote the more important Sabbath; whilst generally the reverse, and properly so, is the case, the apaσxεvý, in its relation to the Sabbath, assuming the name of Tрoráßßarov. Why has our text not simply ἥτις ἐστὶ προσάββατον, instead of ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν ? In my opinion the term προσάββατον was here avoided, because it was liable to being misinterpreted: inasmuch as, according to Leviticus, xxiii. 11, 15, also the preceding day, the 15th Nizan, was called Sabbath.'

6

Independently of the incorrectness of the latter view (see § 24), the learned Professor rests his argument on the gratuitous supposition of Friday' being the exclusive meaning of apaσnen; of παρασκευή being identical with προσάββατον ; and consequently, of the former term not being applicable to the other high-feasts of the Jews. He, moreover, states this, p. 337, in the following words :

Provided my interpretation of Tapaσkεvý be correct, it is evident that this term cannot be used to denote any fore feast-day [we shall prove the contrary § 26]; and, which is highly improbable also, from the character of the sixth week-day materially differing from that of a fore feast-day. Thus, the former bears in the passage, Judith, viii. 6, the peculiar appellation of poráßßarov; according to St. Mark, xv. 42, equivalent to Tapaσkεvý [that this is erroneous, see § 7 and § 27] whilst the name of a fore feast-day, construed by analogy, would form προεόρτιος, οι προέορτος, and which terms actually occur in Philo.

Now, Professor's Wieseler's interpretation of napaonɛun to which he alludes certainly is correct; for he renders the word 'Rüstung, Zubereitung' (preparation); but when he immediately adds,= Friday,' and then continues, it signifies consequently the day on which the Jews prepared their repast for the following Sabbath, in order not to disturb its rest,' etc., surely he will not expect his conclusion to be regarded in any other light than that of a naked assertion, as erroneous-for such, we venture to think, we have already shown it to be-as it is arbitrary.

The

The explanation of our passage offered by him is, therefore, wholly inadmissible. True, our translation, Now the next day' (namely, the one after the preparation-time), may, chronologically considered, appear no less unsatisfactory; yet the object of St. Matthew's remark is withal readily accounted for. He being the only evangelist who, in relating the crucifixion and burial of our Saviour, does not mention that they took place during the preparation time on the Friday, it is more than probable that, not wishing altogether to leave the circumstance unnoticed, he made good his omission in the manner stated-a manner, apparently, of a somewhat ambiguous nature. But, in the first place, the account of the evangelist does not permit us to think of any other than the preparation time, namely the preparation-time during which the crucifixion of Christ took place; secondly, St. Matthew obviates the possibility of the day being mistaken, by observing a chronological order in his narrative, which, if we follow it retrogradingly from the Sunday morning, leaves not the slightest doubt but that the preparation-time of the Friday is meant; and, lastly, Tapaonun, when standing by itself, signifies exclusively the time of preparation for the Sabbath (see § 27). The parenthetical character of the words (ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν) is evident.

6

§ 9. Another decided proof in favour of our interpretation of Tagaonɛun, and against that of Professor Wieseler, we possess in the passage St. John, xix. 14, And it was the Friday of the passover [-day].' We need but transcribe the words to point out the glaring error of such a translation. But our English version, and it was the preparation of the passover,' is no less objectionable; inasmuch as, particularly with reference to the previously quoted passages, it positively states the day here named to have been the day preceding the Jewish Passover, and which, if true, would constitute the asserted contradiction between the evangelists to be an incontrovertible fact. Luther's rendering, Es war aber der Rüsttag in Ostern,' is nothing but a vain attempt to evade the difficulty by an incorrect translation. That the true meaning of our passage is (for about the sixth hour the preparation-time of [on] passover-day commenced),' we shall endeavour to establish in the sequel.

6

§ 10. In the two next Scriptural passages, St. John xix. 31 and 42,° in which the word Tapaσnevń occurs, it certainly admits of being translated, the day of preparation;' yet here also it is more

d

6

(ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα ὥρᾳ δὲ ὡσεὶ ἕκτῃ).

• Οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἵνα μὴ μείνῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ σώματα ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ, ἐπεὶ παρασκευὴ ἦν, (ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη τοῦ σαββάτου), ἠρώτησαν τὸν Πιλάτον, ἵνα κατεαγῶσιν αὐτῶν τὰ σκέλη, καὶ ἀρθῶσιν . ἐκεῖ οὖν διὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν

Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ μνημεῖον, ἔθηκαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

properly

properly rendered 'preparation-time,' and in no wise do these passages support the theory of Professor Wieseler identifying our term with the Friday.'

§ 11. This identity is further disproved by the last passage Judith viii. 6o, cited by the learned Professor himself; for παροσάββατον and προνουμηνία bearing here a perfectly analogous sense in their respective relation to the Sabbath and the feast of the new-moon. The рoσáßßarov, according to Professor Wieseler, being identical with παρασκευή, and παρασκευή again with our Friday, it would follow that govоvunvía be identical with the Friday of the feast of the new moon, and that this is an error we need not state.

§ 12. Thus the positive result of the passages examined is, that the true meaning of the New-Testament term napaonεVÝ is neither Friday' nor preparation-day,' but undoubtedly 'preparation-time.' On the other hand, Professor Wieseler, p. 336, still urges, in favour of his view, that mention is made of 'a Sabbath of the feast of passover' by Ignatius (H. 108) Epist. ad Philipp. c. 13; of a Sabbath of the festive season' by Socrates (H. 450), Hist. Ecc. v. 22; and of Christian Easter-Sundays by Hippolyte (H. 258), in his Paschal Canon. But the epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians is generally acknowledged to be a supposititious document; composed in the fifth century, and in which the words To Tάoxa, moreover, are, in all probability, a still later interpolation. It consequently has as little claim to being adduced as a proof in regard to our question as have the two remaining passages, quoted by Professer Wieseler; because it concerns us not here to know what were the grammatical peculiarities, in the fourth and fifth centuries, of a Roman bishop and a Constantinopolitan lawyer, but, what were those of the Evangelists and the Jewish rabbis at the times of the Apostles. We are fully aware that, at a later period, the Christians, when writing in the Greek language, made use of the word Tagαonɛuń to express our Friday (e. g. Clemens Alex., Strom. vii. 12, 75; Tertull. contr. Marc. iv. 12); and we also know that about the

supplanted, among the Jews, the more ancient construction

(ערב a distended form of) ערובתא same time the rabbinical term

was likewise adopted by ערובתא and that the expression ; ערב שבת

the Syrians and the Arabs, as is proved by the Ao of the former, and the of the latter. But the meaning of a word is, in the course of time, subject to so many influences and

! Καὶ ἐνήστευε πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας χηρεύσεως αὐτῆς, χωρὶς προσαββάτων καὶ νουμηνιῶν, καὶ ἑορτῶν, καὶ χαρμοσυνῶν οἴκου Ισραήλ.

changes,

changes, that, whenever such a meaning in the writings of a particular author is doubtful, it can only properly be determined by the usages of his language in his own age.

§ 13. Thus far then, we venture to look upon our interpretation of age as firmly established. It will now be necessary to compare the term with its Hebrew prototype (supposing the latter to exist), and to fix the exact duration of the preparationtime. Professor Wieseler, pp. 336-7, writes thus:

The term maparkεvý would seem to have been formed with reference to the word 27, Exod. xvi. 5 (see note 7), which passage, connected with the following verses 22 seq., is to be considered as one or the fundamental provisions of the Mosaic law, determining the peculiaf character of the sixth week-day.'

The view, here expressed, may possibly be correct; we make bold, however, to throw our decided doubt upon it. True, the Hiph. of the Hebrew verb answers to the Greek napaσnɛváZe; but there exists no Hebrew noun of that root (which would have formed ), corresponding to the Greek Tapaσxeun, and we cannot, therefore, bring ourselves to imagine that, after a lapse of many centuries, a passage from the Pentateuch should have been consulted to find the Greek expression for a Hebrew word, which itself bears no reference to that passage (see § 14.), and for which the living language of the Greeks already possessed the term, actually adopted. The LXX. translate . loc. cit., not aрaonɛval, but ETOV, and thereby clearly show, that they also did not perceive that close relation, which Professor Wieseler supposes to exist between the two former words. In our opinion, it can admit of little doubt but that agaσxeun at first served to express the mere act of the Jews' preparation for the sabbath, but that it was very soon transferred, and subsequently exclusively applied to the time fixed for that preparation (comp. § 28).

§ 14. Пagaonɛun has, therefore, grammatically considered, no Hebrew prototype. The more ancient Jewish term for it was y (evening, eve), connected with the following sabbath or feastday. This is readily explained. The Mosaic y comprised the time of evening-twilight, which, in the latitude of Palestine, is of short duration; but probably in consequence of the chronological difficulty, which the passage Levit. xxiii. 5-6, presents, the Jewish rabbis had, at a later period, considerably extended its limits. At the commencement of our era, the any embraced the interval between the end of midday (whose duration was one hour) and the beginning of night, and was subdivided into the first evening, reaching from midday until sunset; and the second evening reaching from sunset until night (Exod. xii. 6; xxix. 38-39; comp. Mishna, Pesach. v. 1; Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 4, 3;

Wars,