תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

West; and Christians from Asia Minor found in Rome a fraternal reception and were welcomed to the communion.

But under the Roman bishop Victor, the controversy broke out anew in A.D. 190, between the Romish church on the one side, with which the churches of Alexandria, Tyre, Cesarea, and Jerusalem took part, and the churches of Asia Minor on the other side, of which Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, was now the leader. Among several other points in the controversy, the main inquiry now was, Whether the yearly passover was to be retained, and the Jewish law followed in respect to the time? The opponents, or at least Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus, according to the fragments preserved in the Chronicon Paschale, affirmed that "the last meal of Jesus with his disciples was not the passover, since, according to John's Gospel, Christ partook of it on the thirteenth of Nisan; while on the following day, which was the appointed time for the Jewish passover, he offered up himself as the true sacrifice for mankind, of which the passover was the type." The title or argument of the tract of Apollinaris was: Οτι ἐν ᾧ καιρῷ ὁ κύριος ἔπαθεν, οὐκ ἔφαγεν τὸ τύπικον πάσχα. On the other side, Polycrates wrote an epistle to Victor, preserved by Eusebius, in which he asserts that the Asiatics celebrated the true and genuine day, and appeals to the testimony and practice of apostles and others, viz., the Apostle Philip, who died at Hierapolis, the Apostle John, who taught in Asia Minor and died at Ephesus, the martyr Polycarp, and other bishops and teachers, of whom he says, "These all kept the day of the passover on the fourteenth, according to the Gospel; deviating in nothing, but following according to the rule of faith." Of his own seven relatives, who also had been bishops, Polycrates says, "And these my relatives always celebrated the day when the [Jewish] people put away the leaven." The result of the controversy at this time was, that Victor attempted to break off communion with the Asiatic churches. For this step he was strongly censured by Ignatius, bishop of Lyons, in a letter preserved by Eusebius; || and other bishops likewise raised their voices against the rash measure. Through their efforts peace was at length restored, and both parties remained undisturbed in their own modes of observance, until the great Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, where this question was finally decided in favour of the West. The few scattered churches, which afterwards continued to keep the passover according to the Jewish time, were accounted heretics, and are * Chron. Pasch. i. p. 13, ed. Dindorf. Euseb. 1. c.

+

† Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

Οὗτοι πάντες ἐτέρησαν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης τοῦ πάσχα κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μηδὲν παρεκβαίνοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ἀκολουθοῦντες. § Euseb. 1. c. Καὶ πάντοτε τὴν ἡμέραν ἤγαγον οἱ συγγενεῖς μου ὅταν ὁ λαὸς ἥξνυε τὴν ζύμην. Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

known in history as Quatuordecimani, or "Fourteenth-day Men."

[ocr errors]

66

From the preceding narrative, it is manifest that the passages of John's Gospel which we have reviewed above, were already regarded and urged by Apollinaris and the Western churches, in the latter part of the second century, as conflicting with the testimony of the first three evangelists; that is, as implying that our Lord's last meal with his disciples was not the regular paschal supper. On the other hand, it is no less manifest from the language of Polycrates, that the teachers and churches of Asia Minor, among whom John had lived and taught, celebrated the passover on the evening after the fourteenth of Nisan, in agreement, as they held, with the example of John himself and κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, " according to the Gos pel." Now, whether the writer here meant a single gospel, or, as is more probable, the whole gospel history, he evidently alludes to that celebration of the passover which, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, our Lord held with his disciples; for nowhere else does the gospel history speak of the time or manner of keeping the passover. We are therefore entitled to draw from the language of Polycrates this inference, viz., that he and those before him in Asia Minor, who had been familiar with John and other apostles, had no belief that John's Gospel contained any thing respecting the passover at variance with the testimony of the other evangelists.

That the contrary opinion should have sprung up and have been urged in the West, among churches composed mainly of Gentile Christians, is not surprising. It went to sustain their favourite view that the passover was no longer to be observed, and it also accorded generally with their feeling of opposition and hatred against the Jewish people. As a result of the latter feeling, which became more and more intense as time rolled on, it was held to be a shame for the Christian church to regulate itself after the pattern of the unbelieving Jews who had crucified the Lord, and this suggestion had weight in the Council of Nicea. Even the emperor did not disdain to urge it in his epistle to the churches : Μηδὲν ἔστω ἡμῖν κοινὸν μετὰ τοῦ ἐχθίστου Tãv 'Ioudaíwv öxλou. † While, therefore, the Western churches had strong motives to adopt and press the argument to be derived thus speciously from John's Gospel, the Asiatic churches had no like motives for adhering to the testimony of the other evangelists. The belief and practice of these latter churches could have rested only on tradition-a tradition, too, derived from John himself and his immediate disciples and companions.

See Neander K. G. I. ii., pp. 518-524; II. ii. pp. 643-645; Gieseler K. G. I. pp. 198, 235. Euseb. de Vit. Constantini, iii. 18.

On all grounds, then, both of philology and history, the conclusion remains firm that the testimony of John in respect to the passover need not be, and is not to be, understood as conflicting with that of the first three evangelists.

IX. Other methods of Conciliation reviewed.

Among all those who have in every age held the view that our Lord was crucified before the Jewish passover, the idea seems never to have been entertained, that the apparent diversity of testimony between John and the other evangelists afforded any ground for questioning the authority or inspiration of either. On the contrary, the endeavour has ever been, until recent times, so to interpret the language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or else that of John, as to bring their statements into harmony with each other.

1. The earliest and perhaps most current mode of explanation in the Greek and Latin churches, was that indicated in the extract from the Chronicon Paschale above given, viz., that Jesus on the evening after the thirteenth of Nisan celebrated, not the Jewish passover, but a special paschal supper, a άoya áknôıvòv zaì ávTÍTUπov, the antitype of the Jewish passover, in order to institute the Lord's Supper in connection with it, and that he himself on the fourteenth of Nisan was offered up for mankind as the true paschal victim. This view is likewise found in the fragments of Peter of Alexandria, preserved in the preface of the Chronicon Paschale, and in other Greek writers; and has been adopted in modern times by B. Lamy and Toinard, by Calmet and Deyling, and especially by Gude. † The insuperable objection to this view is the clear and decisive testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which has been already stated and considered.

2. Another mode of explanation assumes that Jesus did indeed eat the Jewish passover, although not at the same time with the other Jews. To account for this supposed difference of time several hypotheses have been brought forward, none of which are tenable even per se, and much less in opposition to the clear language of the first three evangelists. They follow here in the order of time:

(a) The Jews, it is said, following the calculations of their calendar, had deferred the beginning of the passover for one day; while our Lord, according to the letter of the law, ate the paschal supper on the evening after the true fourteenth

*Page 377, above.

See the Harmonies of Lamy and Toinard; Demonstr, quod Christus in cœna sua ravi Lips. 1733, 1742.

See above, p. 361 sq.

Deyling Obss. Sac. i. p. 273; Gude agnum paschalem non comederit.

day of Nisan. In support of this theory, or rather conjecture, the of Júsdar of Luke xxii. 7 is particularly urged. So Scaliger and Casaubon.*

(b) The modern Karaites, who are thought by some to be descended from the Sadducees, determine the time of the new moon by its first appearance; the other Jews, by astronomical calculation. Now, this same diversity, it is said, may have prevailed in the time of our Lord; and thus the Sadducees, and Jesus with them, have celebrated the passover that year a day earlier than the rest of the nation. So L. Cappell, and especially Iken. But here, too, the whole hypothesis is gathered from the air. The Karaites are not known to have had any connection whatever with the Sadducees; the new moon was never determined by astronomical calculation so long as the temple stood; and had such been the rule of the Pharisees then, as the conjunction of the sun and moon necessarily precedes the appearance of the new moon by a day, the celebration of the Pharisees must have taken place a day before, and not a day later. And why, moreover, should Jesus have kept the passover with the Sadducees rather than with the great majority of his nation? ‡

а

(c) Jesus may have celebrated such a passover as is kept by the Jews of the present day, ο πάσχα μνημονευτικόν, not a πάσχα Juoquor,—that is, consisting of merely a lamb killed in the ordinary manner, with unleavened bread,-a voluntary passover, not one prescribed by law. So Grotius, Hammond, and Le Clerc. S But such a mode of celebrating the passover could not exist, and would have been unlawful, especially in Jerusalem itself, so long as the temple was standing, where the victims were always to be killed.

(d) Our Lord, it is said by some, foreseeing that the vengeance of his enemies would overtake him before the close of the fourteenth of Nisan, when the regular paschal supper was to be eaten, celebrated it one day earlier in his character of Messiah, as thus having power over the law. But of all this there is no trace in the New Testament.

Indeed, this whole theory of an anticipative passover, in whatever way explained, is totally irreconcilable with the exact and definite specifications of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the day on which our Lord sent his disciples

Scaliger, Emendat. Temporum 6. p. 531; Casaubon, Exercitt. Antibaron. 16. 13. p. 426 sq.

Ikenii in Dissertt. Philol. Theol. ii. pp. 337-471. See also this view stated in Bochart Hieroz. ii. 50. p. 564; Kuinoel in Matt. xxvi. 17. C.

See Bochart 1. c.; Winer Bibl. Realw. ii. p. 240.

$ Grotius in Matt. xxvi. 18; Hammond and Le Clerc in Mark xiv. 12.

So J. H. Maius de Tempore Pasch. Chr. ultimo, 1712. Seb. Schmid de Paschate

p. 398. Kühnoel ad Matt. xxvi. 17. F. Comp. Ideler Chronol. 1. p. 521.

to prepare the passover was the first day of unleavened bread, the day when it was necessary (os) that the passover should be killed.-(Matt. xxvii. 16; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7.)*

3. A later hypothesis attempts to remove the difficulty, by assuming that the paschal lamb was legally to be killed and eaten, not at the close of the fourteenth of Nisan, but at its commencement, that is, at the close of the thirteenth day, and in the subsequent evening; so that the whole fourteenth day would intervene between the paschal supper and the festival of unleavened bread, which legally began on the fifteenth day. So first Frisch, and after him Rauch. + But this hypothesis is in direct contradiction to Numb. xxxiii. 3; as also to Exod. xii. 6; Lev. xxiii. 5; Numb. ix. 3, 5. ‡ Nor does it even remove the main difficulty, for it does not touch the question respecting John xviii. 28, but leaves that passage, the most important of all, to be explained as we have done above.

It is painful thus to dwell upon these shifts of great and learned, and often pious, minds, to escape from a supposed difficulty which, in fact, does not exist. Still more painful is it to find professed teachers of the Bible pressing the alleged difficulty to an extreme, in order to overthrow the authority of that Holy Book, and venturing sometimes upon assertions like that of De Wette, when he affirms that "the important contradiction between John and the other evangelists remains firm, and all attempts to remove it are false." § We hold, on the contrary, that the four evangelists all testify to one and the same simple truth, and that there exists among them no contradiction. The more we have examined the more has our conviction been strengthened, that the testimony of John, fairly interpreted here, as well as elsewhere, is not only supplementary to, but confirmatory of, that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

X. Literature.

The following are among the more important works which treat in some detail of the subject of this article. The list, however, is by no means complete; neither is that given by Hase in his Leben Jesu, § 124.

J. J. SCALIGER, Opus de Emendatione Temporum. fol. Genev. 1609, &c. p. 531.

I. CASAUBON, De rebus Sacris et Ecclesiast. Exercitt. xvi. ad Baron. Prolegom., &c., fol. Lond. 1614, &c., p. 426 sq.

*See above, p. 362.

Frisch Abhandl. von Osterlamm. Lips. 1758; Rauch in Studien u. Kritiken, 1832, iii. p. 537 sq. translated in Bibl. Repos. for 1834, vol. iv., p. 108 sq. Contra, Gabler in Neusten Theol. Journ. iii. p. 433 sq.

See above, p. 355 sq. Bochart Hieroz. ii. 50. p. 560.

§ Handb. zu John xifi. 1.

« הקודםהמשך »