About the Passover Supper of Christ and about the relationship of contemporary Jewry to the Lord

Contents Introduction Chapter I Chapter II (Regarding the German research of Prof. D. A. Khvolson) The venerable biblical archaeologist Hahneberg wrote in 1869: “There are few subjects in biblical archeology that, on the one hand, are of such universal interest, and on the other, due to their difficulty, have received such varied interpretations as the question of whether Christ’s supper was actually the Israeli Passover supper and whether it was celebrated on the evening of the 14th Nisan” 1 . In view of this, the high importance of all scientific attempts is clear without further words - to bring this confusing matter to possible clarity and resolve a complex problem, at least into a solid hypothesis. From this side, one involuntarily attracts attention to a new study by Honored Professor D. A. Khvolson, published in German in “Memoirs of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences” 2. The main views on this point have long been expressed by the author on the pages of “Christian Reading” 3 and are quite well known to the educated Russian public; in the last work they are only presented more systematically, supported by additional arguments and developed more clearly, defined and much more sharply. Therefore, we do not need to reveal them in detail and in all the details, which sometimes have only an indirect and distant relationship to the main issue. Likewise, we do not consider it necessary to indicate the merits of the work in question: the name of prof. Khvolson enjoys such respectable authority in the scientific world that for him both our praise and our recommendations are completely unnecessary. We will try to note only the theological significance of the author's conclusions, which seems to correspond to his own intentions. If he - like Fleischer - calls himself a “lost theologian” (S. VIII), but takes the topic from the field of New Testament exegesis (S. 1), then we believe that the representatives of this discipline should make the final judgment about the essential value of prof.’s theses. Khvolson. To fulfill our goal, we must first accurately determine the true state of affairs - and then the real strength of the attempt of the learned Hebraist will become clear by itself. This is all the more necessary because the object in question still remains a heavy scientific cross, the inscriptions of which have not even been approximately deciphered. Not to mention Russian literature, where even to this day opinions are possible that are strange to the point of childish naivety - and in the West we encounter hypotheses that are almost incredible in their unfounded boldness. It is enough to give two or three examples to illustrate. Thus, the illustrious preacher Fr. Dido claims that in the year of the Lord’s death, and according to John, the Passover was celebrated by the Jews at the same time as Christ, why there is no question, and at the same time he admits that “Jesus celebrated it on the 14th (Nisan), but the Jerusalemites had the right to celebrate it on the 15th” (et les Jerosolymites avaient 1e droit de le celebrer le 15) 4, although this would be a blatant lack of rights and a violation of all laws. The Jesuits Corneli 5 and Knabenbauer 6 express themselves somewhat more cautiously, who say that for some unknown reason the Jews moved the Passover from Friday to Saturday, but Christ celebrated it - in accordance with the legal requirements - on the 14th of Nisan, using the lamb from the peace offering. Here originality transcends the limits of all plausibility and borders on the realm of dreams. Meanwhile, the simplest facts of gospel history clearly show that the use of the techniques of Alexander the Great only further confuses scientific knots. The point is this. According to the clear testimony of the first three Evangelists (Matthew 26:17-20; Mark 14:1,12-16; Luke 22:1,7-14), the Savior celebrated the supper at the proper time, i.e., the 14th of Nisan, and, therefore, was crucified on the first day of the holiday. In contrast to this, Ap. John no less decisively certifies that Christ reclined with the disciples “before the Passover festival” (8:1), and in the morning the Jews “did not enter (to Pilate) into the praetorium, lest they be defiled, but eat the Passover” (18:28), which, therefore, should have been in the evening. The discrepancy is completely obvious and does not require proof. It goes without saying that it is absolutely impossible to admit it in the Gospels regarding such outstanding and exceptional events in the life of the Lord if we do not want to resolve the entire Gospel history into a product of unconscious mythical creativity, and therefore it is quite natural to try to establish a possible agreement on this point. Since - then - the words of the weather forecasters are too categorical, the main efforts of the harmonists are directed towards interpreting the expressions of St. John. Among them, decisive importance, in our opinion, belongs to 18:28. It follows from it that in the year of the Redeemer’s suffering on the cross, Easter fell only on the day of His death and could not have been celebrated the day before, as the first three Evangelists affirm. In this case, for the purposes of mutual reconciliation, one outcome remains in the thought that the testimony: ϊνα μή μιανϑϖσιν, άλλά φάγωσιν τό πάσχα does not refer to the supper of the Passover lamb. This is exactly what harmonic combinations must be reduced to. They are built according to a system from non posse to non esse in order to create support for reinterpretation and denial of the fact by reasoned impossibility 7 . This gives them the appearance of special persuasiveness, under the cover of which it is so convenient to erect all sorts of hypotheses in favor of understanding the story of John in the meaning of the weather forecasters. But from here it is clear that the entire fate of such reconstructions depends on the consistency or falsity of this assumption. Scientists of the right direction point out that the defilement of a Jew through contact with pagans lasted only until the evening, and after sunset, through ablution, he was completely cleansed. And since eating the lamb happened at this late time, entering the praetorium could not be an obstacle to participating in the Passover meal. Therefore, in this place of John it cannot be understood, but it is necessary to attribute it to the daily holiday sacrifices. Then, and according to the fourth Evangelist, on the eve of the crucifixion it was the 14th of Nisan, which will be quite consistent with the synoptic narratives 8. The logical argument here is distinguished by, one might say, iron indestructibility, but it lacks the necessary factual justification. Let us agree for now that the desecration will last only one day, and then we will not get the result desired by the harmonists. On this point, the late († 1890) Prof. also conceded to them. Franz Delitzsch based on the consideration that the said desecration could be considered to have occurred out of necessity, although, let us add, in this case there was nothing of the kind, as is clear from the case itself. However, this scientist also does not allow the conclusion formulated above and for reasons that are completely irremovable. Harmonists classify entering a pagan dwelling as one of those defilements mentioned in Lev. 15:2 ff. Then touching a pagan will have the same effect as touching someone afflicted by the “flow from the body,” that is, until evening. Meanwhile, Pesachim 69b directly and decisively states: “For one defiled by (touching) a reptile (cf. Lev. 22:5), etc. You can neither slaughter (the lamb) nor pour out” (its blood). Thus, it follows from this that, having entered the Roman Praetorium, the Jews themselves could no longer go to the church and others 9 did not have the right to prepare the Passover lamb for them, if by the time of its eating they had acquired legal purity by washing 10. It is clear that the interpretation considered does not at all convince that John is certainly not talking about Easter in the proper sense. But the question does not end there yet. We have seen a rule that is exactly confirmed by Ap. Peter (Acts 10:28; cf. 9:8,12), but the basis for it has not yet been seen. The Mishnah simply says that “the dwellings of the Gentiles are unclean” (Oholoth XVIII, 7). Jewish scholars place this situation in the same class as desecration through the corpse of a deceased person, and Maimonides notes: “The place where an idolater settles in the land of Israel is desecrated in the same way as the land of the pagans, until it is definitely investigated whether a dead child is hidden there.” From the strength of this evidence we must conclude that the Jews avoided pagan houses on the suspicion that they might be polluted by the presence of a buried miscarriage (Bartenor), which threatened impurity, like touching the deceased 11 . Then: Yoce ben Joezer, seven years before the death of Herod, expressed the opinion that “the pagan land defiles along with the place where there was previously a cemetery” (Schabbath 15a). This testimony explains to us the words of Maimonides, again in the sense that - from the side of uncleanness - pagan dwellings were identified with מוּמאת מת - immunditia mortui. In this case, the defilement from them lasted for seven days (see Num. 19:11 ff.; cp. 31:19) 12. And in relation to the question that concerns us, it follows from here that John 18:28 does not at all exclude 13 the idea that the Jews who brought Christ to Pilate wanted to celebrate the legal Passover on that day in the evening, which is not possible for all evil spirits to be created from the soul of man (Num. 11:6,7) 14. After this, it is impossible to talk about the impossibility of such an understanding, and harmonists are forced to find other ways to convince them of their views. For this purpose, they turn to the further words of John 18:28: άλλά φαγειν το πασχα, although the tone of their speech now becomes more humble and not so confident. They only try to argue that the quoted expression can indicate not only the eating of the Passover lamb, for it applies equally to other holiday sacrifices - chagigah (חֲגיגָה), which were classified as peaceful (שְׁלָמִים) as שמחה שלמה. But posse ad esse non valet consequentia, and then: where does this very possibility come from? Its defenders refer to some biblical passages in their favor, with which they think to justify their thesis. Between them, Deuteronomy 16:2 is considered the locus classicus. Here we read: “And sacrifice the Passover to the Lord... from flocks and herds,” or literally: “(on) Passover (namely) flocks and herds.” Since the latter was not included in the Passover sacrifice itself, the harmonists triumphantly declare that in John, too, by το πασχα is meant chagigah. Let us not stress the presence of the member, which gives the whole expression a special force; We will not mention the possibility that along with the Passover lamb other sacrifices were offered for festive meals (cf. Iоh. Henr. Othonis Lexicon rabbinico-philologicum, Genevae 1675, p. 453) - and besides this, it is clear that the term Passover can only refer to chagigah, but in no case designates it alone. Then there is no reason why John should understand the first Easter, and not the strict sense. Of course, further (v. 3) it is said that with it (עׇלָיו) one should eat unleavened bread for seven days, meanwhile, by the morning of the 15th Nisan there should have been nothing left of the Passover lamb. But from v. 4-6 there is no doubt that the Old Testament writer is talking exclusively about Passover, for it is commanded to eat meat on the night of slaughter, which restrictions did not exist for the chagigi. Below, only six days of unleavened bread are mentioned (v. 8), from which it is obvious that the seventh was special and was appointed for the celebration of the holiday. Therefore, עׇלָײ only testifies to us that unleavened bread was considered a necessary part of the supper 15. At the same time, it is not at all clear that πασχα embraces the hagiga; rather, on the contrary, since St. The author noticeably singles out from the totality of Easter sacrifices one, offered at the place chosen by God and eaten in front of him, and this could be one Easter lamb. It goes without saying that it would be outright arbitrary to assert that the latter is not included in the concept of πασχα; then the harmonists gain absolutely nothing for their interpretation of John 18:28. Even less can 2 Chronicles 30:22 and 35:7-9 be useful to them. In the first place it is reported that under Hezekiah the Israelites “ate the feast seven days, offering peace offerings,” and the king himself and the nobles provided the people with two thousand bulls and seventeen thousand small livestock (v. 24). But there is not even a hint of the term פִסַח, which is why it is completely incomprehensible how it can be deduced from here that it means chagigah. If in v. 21 the Feast of Unleavened Bread is called, then we must only think that during it the festival sacrifices were also offered, and no one has ever denied this. Finally, v. 24 does not refer it to Easter at all, since he means the other seven days after it (cf. v. 23). The second testimony is somewhat more decisive, which reports the same gift by Josiah “for the Passover sacrifice” or, more precisely, “for the Passover” (לַפסׇחים=εἰς ​​τὸ φάσεκ). However, v. 7 clearly states that only lambs and young goats were designated for the Passover, as was required by law. True, we do not find such a distinction further, but this still does not in the least justify attempts to interpret a clear expression in a mutual way. There is a blatant contradiction here with the fundamental exegetical principles, and with us it is all the more sharp because below the oxen are directly separated from the Passover sacrifice (cf. vv. 12, 18, 16). Now we have the right to say that there is no direct evidence in the Bible that the word πασχα indicates one chagigah. One can even conclude with no little scientific categoricalness that in the strict sense and in precise speech this term was applied exclusively to the Passover lamb 16. Therefore: the most that we allow the accordionists to concede is the position that he embraced other Easter sacrifices. But in this case: why does John need to see only them and nothing more? There is no confirmation in this sense in rabbinic literature. In the Sifre (commentary to the book of Num. and Deut.), in the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, in the Jerusalem Talmud, among the rabbis Rashi (Solomon ben-Isak, - “Yarhi” 1105), Behai, Aben-Ezra, Kimkhp, Menasse ben-Israel, small livestock are defined for one “Passover” and large livestock - for one hagigi. Jonathan, b. Nahmanides (Ramban) and Abarbanel both attributed only to the latter. The Mechilta (commentary on the book of Exodus) allows for a broader interpretation, but only as a possibility that the first passover - at the exodus from Egypt - consisted of lambs and oxen. Along with this, it is recognized as no less probable that in Ex. 12:5 we are talking about the chagigah associated with the Passover, or about such sacrifices in which both large and small livestock were sacrificed, but not about the Passover. The Mishnah speaks somewhat mysteriously (Menachoth VII, 5-6 in Surengusius V, p. 88) and yet not in the spirit of the harmonists. In her opinion, by the mention in Deut. 16:2 of cattle at Passover, she wants to suggest that voluntary sacrifices from chullin (not sacred, unclean, - that which is not subject to the law of tithes, etc.) according to the vow, are observed as strictly as Passover, in which oxen, obviously, are not included 17 . This means that the rabbinical language does not authorize us to understand in Ev. Ioanna hagigu. But that's not all. It is not just the word τό πασχα that is important, but also its combination with φαγείν, and then the elasticity of the first is too small for the named scientists. They should be convinced that both of them together were also included in the holiday sacrifices in general. And this is all the more inevitable because it is unlikely that such a sacred act as Eating the Lamb could receive such an expression that did not have a special meaning. It is rather to be expected that a strict terminus technicus will be adopted for this purpose. Wasn’t Ap’s phrase like that? John? The harmonists, of course, do not agree to this and again think to take refuge under 2 Chronicles 30:22: “they ate the food of the festival.” But Easter is not mentioned here and can only be thought of as a seven-day celebration. It is true that the LXX put here τήν έορτή τώνάζύμων, however, they know nothing about eating and write: ϰαί συνετέλεσαν 18, so the suspicion has not been eliminated whether it was not the original and correct readingזַיֹכלו (from כָּלׇה) vm. Masoretic וַיאכלו. Instead of this, φαγείν άπ΄ αύτοΰ (τό πάσχα) in Ex.12:43,44,45,48 and φαγείν αΰτο (τό πάσχα) in Num.9:11, undoubtedly, are attached only to the Passover lamb, for it is commanded not to leave anything from the Passover until the morning and not to break bones (Ex. 12:46. Num. 9:12). In 2 Chronicles 30:18 it is already directly stated as έφαγον τό φάσεϰ, and in v. 15 she is represented as being slain on the fourteenth day. Likewise, in έφαγον τό πάσχα 1 Ezra 6:21 the Passover lamb is celebrated (cf. vv. 19, 20), which began the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As for the rabbinic language, he decisively assigned this expression an exclusive meaning as applied to the Passover supper. It is enough to cite the formula of blessing preserved in Tosephta before eating the Passover lamb: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the world, who... commanded us to eat the Passover.” In this case, the said phrase was as precise and definite as the establishing Eucharistic words: “receive, eat.” Based on the strength of these data, we have no right to understand it differently in the Gospels and, even less, in John. Here we must pay attention to one piece of evidence that is very important in our question. In 11:55 it says: “many came to Jerusalem before the Passover to be cleansed” (προ τού πάσχα, ϊνα άγνίσωιν έαυτούζ). It is beyond dispute that we are talking about a holiday that also includes the supper of the Passover lamb. If later it is mentioned that the Jews avoided defilement for the sake of φαγείν τό πάσχα, then we are obliged to understand these words only in this sense 19 . Otherwise, we will not have an objective criterion for scientific commentary, since we will unnecessarily connect different meanings with identical terms. Such dodgy exegesis always inspires great suspicion, and I think that even the most well-intentioned attempts to reinterpret John 18:28 in favor of hagighih threaten extremely dangerous consequences. Harmonists agree that the weather forecasters (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12,14; Luke 22:8,11,15) have a strict and precise saying. But, without a doubt, this was also fully known to the beloved disciple of the Lord. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that he would use the words under discussion incorrectly and incorrectly, attributing them only to the daily chagigah, for which there is neither reason nor justification. In such circumstances we will come to the saddest conclusions. Tradition confirms that when writing his Gospel, John had before his eyes the works of his predecessors; in this case, its reciprocity would amount to an intention to obscure the matter, although its purpose could only be the desire to bring it to clarity. And, besides, the very difference in such an essential point is incomprehensible in people of the same circle, position and identical views, nourished by the practice of life itself. Without this, we will have to think that our Gospels originated from persons who spoke different and mutually incomprehensible languages. What follows from here is obvious without any additions about the disastrousness of the ensuing result. And it seems to me so dangerous and scientifically impossible that in extreme need I would rather be ready to join Farrar’s opinion that the Theologian silently (?) corrects the weather forecasters. I deliberately dwelled at length on John’s news because I consider it decisive in the issue under consideration. In my opinion, it irresistibly testifies that, according to John, the Jewish Passover began in the evening on the day of the Savior’s crucifixion. From this point of view, all other passages should also be commented on, although they lend themselves to more free reinterpretation. Thus, πρό τήζ έορήζ τού πάσχα 8:1 in the fourth Evangelist is completely natural if, according to him, Easter came only in a day. I know well and quite appreciate the experiences of other understandings, but they arouse more bewilderment. In Russian literature, the conjecture was stated that the first verse constitutes a complete whole and has no connection with the news of the supper. Moreover, the expression about Christ’s love is fully applied to the fact of His departure to Ephraim (11:54), where He devoted Himself entirely to His disciples 20 . But the whole trouble is that άγαπαω marks a feeling that has received actual detection (cf. John 13:34, 1 John 4:10, Eph. 2:4, 5:2,25) 21, as in Chapter 8. maybe just washing your feet. Not to mention the meaning of Ephraim's removal, it is difficult to understand it because this entire story is separated through δέ, which for prof. Nekrasov would be much more appropriate in Article 2. It is also impossible to give the aorist a plusquamperfectum meaning, which it acquires only in relative clauses, and then the mood that began (at least under Ephraim) continued now, when it found a brighter and, obviously, individual expression (είζ τέλοζ). Therefore, the “Factual” connection between ήγάπηεν and ϰαί δεϊίπου is not denied. I would be more inclined to accept that John refers to the “feast of the Passover” all the time from the 14th Nisan, for the Apostles' guess in 8:29 could only point to the next day, on which the Jews ate the Passover lamb. This fully corresponds to the meaning of 18:28. Likewise, παρασϰευή τού πάσχα (19:14) is explained from here as the Easter eve 22, which is why it was necessary to rush with the legal proceedings. It is true that it was also a weekly Friday 23, but then it is qualified by John (19:42) with the epithet “Jewish” 24. It was a weekday, not a holiday that was yet to come. Hence the obvious dissimilarity with the image of weather forecasters. At the same time, it is no less true that - and apart from the thought of divine inspiration - one cannot think that any of the Evangelists were mistaken or did not know the matter, 25 so that the requirement of their mutual agreement turns out to be mandatory. For this reason, a number of new hypotheses arise for the interpretation of Matthew, Mark and Luke in relation to John. We will not present them, but will use only some data to illuminate for ourselves the nature of the day of Christ’s suffering. Let us note in advance that their significance is usually exaggerated to the extreme, while in themselves they can be understood very differently and must be explained in connection with other facts 26. First of all, they point out that the high priests and elders of the people themselves did not want to take the Lord to the holiday (Matt. 16:3-5; Mark 14:2. Cf. Luke 22:2), but the motive for this was not respect for the latter and the precepts of the law, but fear of indignation - those political considerations that Kaiphas expressed with such crude cynicism after the resurrection of Lazarus ( John 11:48,50). Circumstances unexpectedly turned in favor of the conspirators, and previous fears, more hypocritical (John 11:57), were abandoned 27, since the enemies of Christ imagined serving God (John 16:2). It is also reported that the crowd of people who came with Judas were armed with swords, which Peter also had, although it was forbidden to carry them on the Sabbath. However, Maimonides testifies that the school of Hillel did not equate the holiday rest with the Sabbath, and then it is undeniable that during the war with the Romans the Jews violated it not only in the interests of self-defense, but also for an armed offensive 28. They also say that the trial could not take place either on Saturday or before the holidays, and - therefore - Friday in the year of the sufferings of the cross and according to weather forecasters was a weekday. The reason for this was that they were afraid not to finish the production right away, and it would have to be postponed to an unauthorized time. The assumption is absolutely inapplicable to our case, because this time there could be no doubt about such a desired outcome. Moreover, the prohibition of the Mishnah, according to Maimonides, only means that a judgment cannot be written down on the Sabbath, and in Shabbath (7:2) the judgment is not even named among the 39 Sabbath prohibitions and, according to the Gemara, was only transferred to another place. Sometimes it was even directly commanded to postpone the execution of a criminal until the holiday for the greater edification of the people 29. Khvolson and Wünsche 30 object that here we are talking about a purely special case, when some scientist speaks out against the generally accepted religious definition of the Sanhedrin; but why could not this rule be applied to Christ? Didn’t the zealous minister see in Him an insult to the dignity of the high priest (John 18:22) and didn’t the Jews themselves accuse Him of cruelly violating the law (John 19:7)? And the rabbinic justification for this exception from Deut. 17:12,13 (about insolence towards the priest) testifies to how easy it was for Jewish resourcefulness to find a “fulcrum” (asmakhta) and bring the Redeemer under it in the most “legal way” 31 . There are several examples of such executions in biblical writing. So, in the desert, a man gathering wood was stoned that day (Num. 15:32-36). Likewise, Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah, was killed on the Sabbath (2 Kings 11:5 ff. 2 Chronicles 23:4 ff.). Khvolson insists that there was no trial here; however, in the first case, the society acted according to the direct judgment of Moses (Num. 15:34,35). Finally, the author’s attachment to his thought is completely incomprehensible to us precisely in the mouth of the venerable Hebraist, who, it seems, could be least interested in these questions. We refer to his own words 32 and they read as follows: “The Sadducean high priesthood was especially full of hatred against the direction caused by Christ, in which they (?) saw the strengthening of the popular party. Therefore, the Sadducean Sanhedrin did not worry about the humane instructions of their opponents, the Pharisees. The victorious clerical-aristocratic party, or the Sadducees of that time, sought per fas et nefas (sic!) to free themselves from the Christ they hated, Who had great influence on the people, and they achieved, like any victorious party, that the metropolitan mob shouted: “Crucify! Crucify!” In this case: what are we talking about when the principle reigned supreme in the Sanhedrin - at any cost and “against all decrees” (cf. Acts 23:3)? Again, I don’t understand how prof. Khvolson, zealous in discovering internal contradictions in Matthew, so often fails to notice them in himself! In general, from his point of view, the trial of Christ is quite understandable even on a holiday. After all, the Evangelists put on their pages only facts and do not at all claim that they corresponded to the legal norm. And since the latter had no application then, it was precisely the illegal that was the most natural in reality. The author must agree with this if he wants to be true to himself. After this, very little data remains at his disposal. He emphasizes Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:56, but the second place does not talk about purchasing, the absolute prohibition of which on the holiday cannot be proven irrefutably. Moreover: if both the trial and the execution were carried out on the 15th Nisan (legally or not? - it doesn’t matter), then it was all the more permissible to allow burial in a decent manner, especially in view of the holiness of the Sabbath (Mark 16:42; Luke 23:54,56; John 19:42), which the criminal accusers were so concerned about (John 19:31), although the next day they were not ashamed turn to Pilate with your shameful tricks (Matthew 27:62 ff.). The release of the body depended personally on the procurator, and Joseph, Nicodemus and the myrrh-bearers could hardly be embarrassed by the ritualistic rules 33 when they saw all the godlessness of the atrocity and with a sense of respect were forced to pay their last debt to the Great Teacher, whose body otherwise would have been desecrated to the end. Prof. is even less justified. Khvolson news that on the way to Calvary the soldiers captured Simon of Cyrene, ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾿ ἀγροῦ (Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). He explains this expression in such a way that an involuntary crusader was coming from field work; however, neither translations 34 nor biblical parallels convince of this with scientific certainty. It is undeniable that the word άγρός sometimes has the indicated meaning (Matthew 22:5; Luke 14:18, 15:15,25, 17:7), but there are many more examples where it - along with χώμα - is directly opposed to άστυ, πόλις (Mark 5:14, 6:36,56 ; Luke 8:34, 9:12 ). However, this is not yet so important. It is incomparably more significant that the travelers of Emmau are called πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν (Mark 16:12), instead of which in Luke 24:13 we find εἰς κώμην. Isn’t it simpler and closer to understand the news about Simon of Cyrene in a similar way? This means that the first three Evangelists do not have direct evidence that would force us to consider the day of the crucifixion to be a working day. Otherwise, their stories will contain the strongest internal dissonance. Already, but this alone should deduce the unclear and doubtful from the indisputable, as in John - 13:1 is commented on in the spirit of 18:28. For the weather forecasters, it is absolutely certain that the farewell supper was on the first day of unleavened bread (Matthew 23:17), when, according to the law, the Passover lamb was slain (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). Impossible proofreading will not help matters at all. In any case, the disciples would not have turned to the Lord with their question at an inopportune time, and the owner of the house would hardly have allowed such an unheard-of act, and yet, it seems (Mark 14:15,16; Luke 22:12,13), he had prepared for the holiday even earlier. The description of the events agrees with this, and its correspondence with the Easter ritual is beyond any suspicion 36 . Let us assume that, having preceded the legal norm, Christ observed the form, but where was the lamb taken? Borrowing it from any other victims is an unthinkable improbability, offensive to science. It is clear that according to weather forecasters, the event took place at the legal hour. Now their contradiction with John is intensifying to the extreme. How can they be brought into harmony and is agreement even possible? – Prof.’s hypothesis answers this question. Khvolson. To understand its proper strength, let us allow ourselves a few preliminary words. The first three Evangelists convey with complete categoricalness that on the eve of the suffering of the cross, Passover was prepared according to the law and, obviously, by all and for all Israelis. Christ himself with his disciples and some others ate it that day. John preserved only one second moment, and he does not have the slightest hint that the Easter sacrifice was offered on Friday. Of course, this comes naturally when eating, but in such a complicated subject, even such a touch is extremely expensive. His energy will rise even more when we remember that there is no trace of the high priests’ care in this sense; on the contrary, they accompany Christ to Calvary and go to Pilate twice on certain issues, meanwhile the sacred time of the slaughter of the lamb was at least close. In general, reading the fourth Gospel inspires the involuntary conviction that on Friday the Jews only ate the Passover, prepared earlier and, of course, according to the law, that is, in the church and while singing hallel. Hence the closest assumption is that the last act in the year of Christ’s suffering was moved to the 13th of Nisan. An idea of ​​this kind has been expressed for a long time and in a wide variety of combinations, but for the most part so strange and bizarre that the idea itself could not acquire scientific faith. It was carried out more strictly and seriously by the learned Jew Derenburg, however, he did not fully justify his hypothesis 37 . Only Prof. Khvolson developed it into a complete system, which we will present in essential points. The central place in it is occupied by the question of the time of day for bringing Easter sacrifices in the church. The laws on this matter are too general and not sufficiently defined. In one place it simply says that the Passover was celebrated in the evening (Josh. 5:10), in others the expression חׇעַרבׇּיִם בּיִן is found – between two evenings (Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9: 3,5,11). The translation of the LXX with mutual πρὸς ἑσπέραν ( Ex. 12:6 ; Num. 9: 3,11 ) or literal ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ἑσπερινῶν ( Lev.23:5). This, of course, plays into the hands of the harmonists, and they firmly hold that “evening” refers to the last quarter of the 24-hour period - after noon until sunset 38 . Maybe this is true, but why such a special “between two evenings”? It would be much easier to rely on the rabbinic understanding, which is, indeed, very decisive 39 . However, as rightly noted by Prof. Khvolson, this very persistence reveals a desire to eliminate the universal principle and consolidate a new rule. Biblical language can also lead one to admit that one must understand complete twilight, and Aben Ezra directly expresses that here it is considered approximately 1⅓ hours from sunset to the onset of night itself. In our opinion, Deut. 16:6 is also very important. We do not argue that different translations are acceptable here - “in the evening at” and “after sunset”, but it is still interesting that St. the author found it necessary to add a more precise definition of the chronological point for the slaughter of Easter. This would hardly be necessary for a period of almost 6 hours or the part of it closest to noon. This will also be valid under the condition that on Easter Friday the daytime sacrifices were postponed by 12½ - 1½ hours and the Easter sacrifice supposedly began from 2 hours after lunch. It is incomparably more natural to think that ἑσπερας πρὸς δοσμὰς ἡλίου quite closely connects “evening” and “sunset” and makes it possible to know the moment not far from the last edge. To clarify the views on this subject in the era of Christ the Savior, it is useful to deal with the New Testament usage of words. One piece of news from Luke in the story of the Emmaus travelers who, holding the Lord, said to Him (24:29): μεῖνον μεθ' ἡμῶν, ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπέραν is worthy of attention. ἑστὶν καὶ κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα. Here “in the evening” directly seems to be the conclusion of the day and in no way applies to the entire noon. Hence the most likely conclusion is that it was about sunset - an hour and no more than two. Was this enough to justify the offering of the Passover lambs? – a negative answer seems to follow from rabbinic testimony. According to them, on the 14th of Nisan the evening sacrifice should be performed between 1½ and 2½ pm; if it fell on Friday, then from 12½ to 1½. This was done so that the necessary interval remained for the preparation of Passover 40. Consequently, it was considered necessary for this to take at least four hours, but then this would be a clear contradiction to the value of πρὸς ἑσπέραν that we have established. Let us give in and shorten the period to Aben Ezra’s standard, and in this case the difficulties will not disappear. After the Passover sacrifice was offered, a long and complex procedure began before supper itself. It was necessary to return home and bake the lamb whole and with special precautions according to the ritual. Is it conceivable that at least the last third line, which had only ¾ of an hour, managed to prepare all this in such a short time? Meanwhile, the categorical rule of the Mishnah (Pesachim VI, 1) expressively states: “The following things will supersede the Sabbath of Passover: the slaughter of it (the lamb), the pouring out of the blood, the cleaning out of the entrails, the burning of its fat. But baking it and removing its entrails does not replace the Sabbath.”41 It turns out the same as in relation to the question of desecration: if on Friday the 14th of Nisan it was possible to bring the Passover sacrifice, then it was forbidden to eat it. For these reasons, we certainly lean towards prof. Khvolson, that with such a confluence, Easter was generally not permissible 42. No matter how problematic his opinion about “between both evenings” in the sense of the moment after sunset, his main conclusion, in our opinion, will be firm until it is proven that in the age of Christ the principle “Easter drives out the Sabbath” reigned supreme. But since our Gospels, the historical dignity of which is recognized by the very fact of efforts in their mutual reconciliation, do not testify in its favor, we have the right to think that such a resolution did not exist then. Now it was necessary to find a way to fulfill the immutable law of God - and it could not be found anywhere else than in postponing the act of slaughter to another day. Doesn't the ancient rule of the Jewish calendar 43 that the 14th of Nisan cannot be on a Friday serve as an echo of these difficulties? But it was not permissible to assign it to Saturday, because then the great day of the holiday would certainly fall on the 16th (if not the 17th) day - and all legal regulations would be cruelly violated 44. Likewise, all historical news excludes this and makes it clear that it would have been easier to classify the 13th of Nisan as a holiday period. At the same time, the most natural thing was to schedule the Easter sacrifice on Thursday, which happened in the year of Christ’s death. Such a supposition is not only plausible, but also completely consistent with the spirit and direction of Jewish views to this day. Then all that remains is the act of eating the Paschal lamb, which, according to weather forecasters, was on Thursday, and according to John, on Friday. This was already a private and personal matter, and here no law could make it impossible to distinguish in time, as was the case during the slaughter. And for him there was quite sufficient justification in the words of Moses, who commands that nothing remains of the Passover lamb by the morning, and it is eaten that very night (Exodus 12:6,8,10; Numbers 9:11,12; Deut.16:4). When it was slaughtered on the 13th of Nisan, it could easily have happened that some ate it on that date, while others ate it on the next. So it happened that Christ celebrated Easter on Thursday, and the Jews ate it on Friday. We will not hesitate to even admit that the latter practice was then observed by the majority of Jerusalemites 45 - and we do not see the slightest danger in this! Knowing about His death on the 14th of Nisan, the Lord did today what could not be done tomorrow. And for Him was the letter of the law, according to which the Passover sacrifice was to be eaten on the night after it was offered. Along with this, others, not without right, meant the morning of the 15th of Nisan and postponed eating until Friday, when nothing prevented this. In this way, the disagreement between the weather forecasters and John is eliminated by itself, because they equally accurately and punctually note what actually happened; only the first speak about it as people who have already tasted the Passover supper, and the other talks about it from the point of view of the Jews, to whom it was yet to come. How important and scientifically valuable the formulated result is is clear to anyone who has seriously studied the agreement of the Gospel tales and knows how often one has to be content with much weaker hypotheses, in the absence of better ones. If this conclusion is reached in addition to the Gospels - on the basis of sources independent of them, if it is partly accepted by non-Christian authorities (Derenburg), then the higher its dignity and the more indisputable its power. If it is supported and defended by such recognized Hebraists and undisputed experts in the field of Jewish literature as Prof. Khvolson, whose depth and breadth of knowledge cause surprise even among writers who disagree with him (Schürer), then for scientific credibility, it seems, it is impossible to demand more. And “Christian scholars,” who usually use random indications and fragmentary translations of Jewish sources, should only be grateful for this pleasant service, which so successfully simplifies a very complex and difficult task. And in my deep conviction, undoubted and inalienable honor in this regard belongs to the author of the book under review, not to mention the fact that it contains a lot of other information suitable for a theologian, even if in a direction unexpected for Mr. Khvolson. And I personally sincerely think that his hypothesis must be internalized in principle if we do not want to interpret John 18:28 contrary to its direct and natural meaning. So far there is no way to this, and evangelical harmonization on this issue will not be successful except by accepting Khvolson’s assumption. At least, no experiments of this kind have been presented and hopes for them are weak. This is where we should end. But the venerable professor does not limit himself to this and goes further. Unfortunately, I absolutely cannot follow him and will express my best judgment with the same frankness with which the previous lines were written. I would only like to hope that this will be taken as a tribute to humiliation for serious work, and not as a desire for empty struggle for some extraneous motives. True scientific glory has never been built on destruction alone, and victories in verbal tournaments bring very little honor... Prof. Khvolson pays special attention to Matthew 26:17: Ιησοῦ, λέγοντες ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα; Mark (14:12) and Luke (22:7) express it even more precisely that then it was necessary (ἔδει) to kill the Passover, and - that means - it was a legalized and obligatory time for everyone. But this was only the 14th of Nisan, and only the 15th was considered the “first day of unleavened bread,” when it was already too late and virtually impossible to offer the Passover sacrifice. With such difficulties, Prof. Khvolson recalls that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the “Hebrew” language, and tries to guess how the given verse read in the original. Fairly starting from the Syrian translation, he believes that there were two verbs (scriptio plena) התקרב (the day approached and the disciples approached), but the copyist accidentally omitted four letters, due to their similarity with the following, and the phrase turned out to be meaningless. Then the preposition ב (in) was added to the first word יומא (day), and this is where the current reading came from: “on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came near,” while in the original it was that “this day was still approaching” in accordance with “before the feast” John 13:1. The texts of Mark and Luke were then corrected according to this incorrect proofreading, and in this way science received the heavy burden of reconciliation due to the ignorance or carelessness of the copyist. I confess that the expression of the weather forecasters - in the strict sense - is inaccurate and therefore, with all my disagreement with these restorations, I find that the reviewer of Mr. Khvolson’s book, the Nile professor Schurer, did not have the right to characterize this entire attempt with the cruel word “house of cards” 46. Nevertheless, I must declare with all decisiveness that this whole hypothesis is completely incredible from a scientific and historical point of view, not to mention the fact that everything here is unknown, only X’s; someone, somewhere, sometime: – what can be built on this? I don’t argue about the restoration itself, although this is extremely problematic 47 . The point is not at all in this and not in the tens of thousands of New Testament versions of Trigels, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort. It is an elementary truth that the New Testament text is not an autograph and reasonable criticism of it is the most important scientific task; but we are talking about the purest possibility, and all reasoning must be kept in this area. In the German adaptation (S. 12) of his work, Prof. Khvolson tries to translate the question into facts and points to the Sahidic translation of Luke 22:7, which reads: dies autem asymorum propinquus erat, quo oportebat mactare pascha, which is supposedly “in complete agreement with the correction he made 18 years ago.” It is very unfortunate to note that there is a considerable misunderstanding here, although due to my complete ignorance of this subject I cannot be an authoritative judge. I don’t even comprehend what the author found useful for himself in this, for example, in comparison with Cureton’s reading of 48 τοῦ πάσχα (vm. τῶν ἀζύμων)? I convey the Latin phrase in Russian: “the day of unleavened bread was near (approached), on which the Passover must be sacrificed”; Isn't it the same in Greek and is there any significant difference here? Propinquus should not be taken into account, for - even if the conversation took place over six months, it still remains undeniable that, according to Luke, the lamb was slain on the day of unleavened bread, and this is the main difficulty. Then, and according to the very essence of the subject, Prof. It is better for Khvolson not to touch the facts in his own interests, because then a mortal question will arise before him: why are no echoes of the original reading preserved? 49 Obviously, for the existence of his hypothesis it is necessary to think about the earliest time of Christian writing, when there were few manuscripts and proofreaders could delve into all copies. This is also required because we are talking about the “Hebrew” text of Matthew and before the appearance of the translation, which in any case did not happen late. Let's talk about this possibility. The scribe made a mistake, and the phrase became incomprehensible. Believers see this, but add a further and irreparable error. Is this conceivable? Wouldn't it be better to turn to the authority of the Jerusalem church, where, undoubtedly, they knew the matter exactly? And this was all the more necessary because for the “Jews” the logical contradiction of the amendment should have seemed unbearable and unnatural. Let us not forget that the first Gospel was intended for Palestinian Christians, and communication between the perplexed and the holy city was not difficult. But even if they made a mistake, they decided and corrected it, why was it necessary to spoil other copies that did not contain anything incomprehensible and, perhaps, even contained the original itself? All of this is incredible. The question of translation is equally dangerous. I will not touch upon it in detail, just as I will leave aside the testimony of Papias (Eusebii N. E. III, 39:16), which, in my opinion, does not speak at all about different versions, even partial 50. The important thing is that the Greek edition, made in Palestine, soon acquired unconditional significance. It replaced all the “Jewish” lists and replaced the original to such an extent that it disappeared without a trace and only the most approximate fortune-telling is conceivable about it; it turns out that it is even possible to deny (unfairly, of course) its very existence (Erasmus, Cajetan, Hugues). This truth is also confirmed by the fact that the Greek text of Matthew represents a definite and strict whole no less (perhaps more) than Mark and Luke; in any case, the boldest criticism regarding it does not arouse such suspicions as, for example, regarding the end of the second Gospel. Consequently, the Greek version had an overwhelming authority, and without this premise the whole fate of the translation would be absolutely incomprehensible. But it acquired such a high weight solely thanks to church sanction, which could only be obtained by a completely certified copy. And the culprit had to be a respectable and famous person, without whom the success of the work would not have been ensured to such an exceptional degree. We do not know how all this happened, but we have the right to think that all means were used - comparison with the best “Jewish” manuscripts, careful comparison, testimonies of distinguished persons, etc. This is not all. The first use for the apostolic writings was in liturgical assemblies, and they necessarily came under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities. Both the history of the canon and textual criticism will become scientifically impossible if this church control is not allowed, because then there will be no legal criterion, and we will only have to say that someone once wrote, others rewrote and made mistakes, others corrected as they wanted, etc. Is it possible that, under such conditions, one false reading would gain universal dominance and not the slightest hint of the true one would remain? I can hardly imagine hesitating about a negative answer - especially when both the logical and factual contradiction in Matthew's news is so sharply emphasized. This means: the starting point of Prof.’s proofreading. Khvolson cannot even be called hypothetical; Naturally, it does not withstand scientific testing any further. The author does not go into detail here and confines himself to a brief and categorical statement: “As for the parallel passages in the 2nd and 8th Gospels (Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7), we think that both of these passages were later changed according to the corrupted passage of Matthew in order to bring them into agreement with him; and this change was made (perhaps in the first century?) by some pagan Christian who was not closely acquainted with Jewish customs regarding the Easter holiday” 51. Bold and decisive, but unproven and unprovable! The two were corrected one at a time, why not the other way around, when they had equally sacred authority and when there was nothing puzzling about them, as is found in Matthew? We do not touch upon the “synoptic problem”: first of all, prof. Khvolson expresses himself extremely vaguely on this subject, and the hypothesis of mutual use cannot be useful for him by the very meaning of his assumption. And without this there are enough improbabilities. It would be interesting to first know how the said “places” read in the original? Unfortunately, the author does not do this, although here he had at his disposal an abundant supply of materials in the form of different readings, translations, patristic quotations, etc. And this, of course, is because they do not have the slightest support for this. And in this case, very sad consequences follow for him - and it is impossible to eliminate them. If damage occurred in the translation when the manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd Gospels were distributed, then it is completely inconceivable that even a hint of a correct edition could not survive to us. It is physically impossible to assume that the correction immediately penetrated into all the manuscripts. One thing remains that the autographs themselves underwent similar corrections; but who will believe this unimaginable fact? There are no traces of the alleged prof. Khvolson tends to rework the difficult expressions of Mark and Luke according to Matthew. Rather, there is evidence to the contrary. It is known, for example, that Mark 16:9-20 is absent from many authoritative codes, and the ancient evidence against it is so solid that its falsity is defended by the most impartial and respectable scientific authorities. How to understand this phenomenon? Defenders (Reitmayr, Valroger, Aberle, Cornely) of the authenticity of this part, and for me undoubted 52, express the following conjecture. The Alexandrian church ended Lent at Easter midnight, while others ended it with the crowing of the roosters (cnf. Dionys. M. ad Basil.: Migne, gr. ser. t. X, col. 1272 sqq.). The first relied in its practice on Matthew 28:1 and, naturally, had to publish in its lectionaries the supposedly discordant story of the second Evangelist, so as not to confuse the weak conscience of believers. From here, from the capital of Egypt, incomplete copies without the twelve final verses were distributed. Let these considerations seem completely unsteady to me; – the important thing is that even in the case of real collisions, they did not resort to corrections, no matter how simple and convenient they were. Then what right do we have to talk about them if we do not have the necessary textual-critical foundations and motivations? Let me take another example. In 1892, Burian published fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter found in Egypt. Because of this, a whole storm arose in the West: publications multiplied by leaps and bounds, the most daring theories were and are being built, the book market was flooded with skinny brochures and voluminous volumes. In our opinion, this phenomenon in itself is only sad and for the 101st time shows the hopelessness of New Testament Western criticism. She put a mournful cross over all apostolic and ancient patristic writing, 53 and she had to build the history of the Christian church according to the theory of generatio spontanea, - ex nihilo. It is inevitable that she clutches at every apocryphal passage, just as the Gauls once clung to the cloak of every visiting philosopher and stuck to him like iron to a magnet. But let us leave the dead to bury their dead and turn to our subject. In the “Gospel of Peter” we find the following news 54. Herod, who gave the order to crucify the Lord, then says to the hegemon (v. 5): “Brother Pilate! if no one asks for it (the body of Jesus), we will bury Him (because it comes - ἐπιφώσκει: cf. Luke 23:54 - Saturday, meanwhile it is written: let the sun not set on the one killed - Eph.4:26; Deut.21:23; Gal.3:13; Josh.10:27? -) before the first the day of unleavened bread, their feast" The testimony is completely identical with the testimony of John, but it is assimilated by Ap. Petru. This is very characteristic, because firm church tradition elevates the second canonical Gospel to the authority of this particular disciple of Christ. Under such conditions, the most natural thing would be to correct Mark in the indicated way, and not change it according to the distorted text of Matthew. At the same time, we see that the tradition regarding the Jewish Passover laws was no longer as unknown to the ancient Christians as it is supposed. Khvolson. This is not yet an argument that Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Tertullian, Lactantius and Ambrose derived the word πάσχα from the verb πάσχειν: they clarified the meaning of the Christian Easter of the suffering of the Lord, and then from post to ante it is not always convenient to conclude. They forgot after, but could have known earlier, which is what we find regarding the numbering of the days of unleavened bread. Their beginning was well known. If the texts of Mark and Luke were still not corrected, then, consequently, the ancient Church did not find this either necessary or permissible, since it recognized them as authentic in this place. Let’s add two or three lines about the Gospel of John. The voice of authoritative tradition informs us that the Apostle had at hand the works of his predecessors 55 and published his own to complement them 56 . As an eyewitness and participant in the events, he had accurate information about their time. He could not doubt that the weather forecasters themselves would not have made a chronological error and that it was due to ignorant zeal. Is it permissible now to think that he did not restore the true reading and simply confused the matter with excellent testimony? Of course not. In this case, shouldn’t we assume that the error crept in after the publication of the fourth Gospel? In the realm of the possible, it is difficult to predict everything, but it should be said in advance that this in itself is unthinkable and only creates a new mystery: why did the proofreading not affect John, although here it was the easiest? It would be worth replacing πρό in 13:1 with the preposition εν and, if you like, τὸ πάσχα in 18:28 - θυσίας(ν), and the agreement would be complete, and we would be forever spared from enormous work... Reducing all of the above to unity, we have the right to assert that the projected prof. Khvolson reconstruction on objective scientific grounds is impossible in any respect. What follows from this is self-evident: the accepted reading must remain unchanged until the inevitability of such a bold amendment is proven. Of course, the venerable Hebraist strikes on this side, putting forward the apparent necessity of such reprisals - both factual and logical. Let's look at this point too. The author claims that “after his restoration of the original text of the Gospel of Matthew, the harmony between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John is also restored” 57 . Frankly, this statement is far from clear to me. It is indisputable that then, according to all the legends, Christ’s supper will happen “before the Easter holiday,” but it will not be denied that Christ ate the lamb on Thursday, while the Jews ate it on Friday. There will indeed be agreement if John 18:28 is interpreted in the sense of hagigi; Until this is proven irresistibly, agreement in words does not exclude sharp disagreement in the matter. But the weather forecasters seem to contradict themselves in their actual news. To justify this, some small details of the story are given - about the armed capture of Christ, the trial of Him, Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Arimathea, since all this is unacceptable on a holiday. Above 58 we have analyzed all this evidence and know that there is no absolute impossibility in this. The first three Evangelists record only facts, but why did they happen - was it because of a violation of the law on holiday peace, or out of respect for it? - this is a different question, not related to our present subject. In any case, these examples do not convince us at all that weather forecasters should not imagine Easter taking place on the eve of the sufferings on the cross; and, on the contrary, it is better to comment on them in this spirit. Much more important is the internal contradiction in the expression of Matthew 26:17, for the first day of unleavened bread was on the 15th, and the lamb was slain on the 14th; but is it so sharp and significant? It seems to me that Prof. Khvolson exaggerates his strength. It is worthy of attention that when πρώτ ῃ τῶνἀζύριων Matthew does not mention the slaughter at all, and Luke (22:7) says more generally: ἡ ἡμέρατῶν ἄζύμων. This gives rise to some interesting guesses regarding the course of events. It is not visible from anywhere that the Apostles themselves went to the church to offer the Easter sacrifice. They were only in the upper room and found it completely ready, and at the right hour the supper opened. Hence it is natural to think that the lamb had already been prepared by the owner of the house earlier and was given to the Lord. Then it is quite possible that His conversation with the disciples took place at a later time 59, and the weather forecasters mean by the (first) day of unleavened bread not the beginning of it, but the very end, reckoned with the 15th of Nisan. But let us talk about the entire (natural) day of the 14th Nisan - and then we are not completely hopeless if we agree to admit the inaccuracy of the expression of the Evangelists, and this is inevitable in many cases. No less than this, it is permissible in ours. Mark clearly identifies το πάσχα with τὰ ἄζυμα (14:1) and equally refers them to τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, δτε τὸ πάσχα ἑθυον (14:12). This means, in his opinion, the Passover began on the 14th of Nisan, when the lamb was also slaughtered: why was it not the first day of unleavened bread for him? Thus, Luke expressively merges ἡ ἑορτή τῶν ἀζύμων with ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα (22:1) and means it precisely by ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν ἀζύμων, ᾗ ἐδει θύεσθαι τὸ πάσχα (22:7). If for the Evangelists there were already azims on the 14th Nisan, then according to their terminology it is quite logical that this number is also designated as the first day of unleavened bread. Here the conclusion is inevitable, otherwise there would be a very sharp disagreement. Whether such word usage is accurate or not is not our concern. It is important that this is a fact with which we must come to terms. The corrections here are no less inconvenient and inappropriate than in relation to other works of ancient and ancient Christian writing, where, based on the connection of concepts, we try to guess the author’s thought without breaking his language in our own way. And in our example, the readers could not have misunderstandings, since it is too clear that it is said about the time of the slaughter of the Passover lamb. And the weather forecasters’ expression itself is not so extraordinary in its improbability. We have seen that in the fragments of the “Petrine Gospel” the burial of the Lord is timed to coincide with πρὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, and it happened (v. 22 in Harnack on page 10) around the ninth or, according to our reckoning, the third in the afternoon (cf. v. 15: ἦν δὲ μεσημβρία). The writer, therefore, considers from this time the beginning of the days of unleavened bread. In any case, it is true that αἱ ἡμεραι τῶν ἀζύμων and ἡ ἑορτὴ (του πάσχα) for him mutually replace one another, as equivalent (v. 58 on p. 12). And in non-canonical passages it is found that through ποιε ἵν τἡν ἑορτὴν – τὸ πάσχα the entire day on which the Easter sacrifice was offered 60 . It is unlikely that all these phenomena are accidental. We are rather forced to assume that we have preserved here an echo of genuine word usage, very widespread and justified by actual practice. And a witness to this is the contemporary of the Evangelists, the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, who was such an expert and authority in matters of the law from a young age 61 . In his “Antiquities” (II, 15:1) he reports 62: “and for eight days we celebrate the so-called Feast of Unleavened Bread” ἀζύμων λεγομένην). Khvolson tries to weaken the power of this categorical testimony in various ways, but not entirely successfully. According to his hunch, writing in Rome, the author speaks of the extra-Palestinian period of celebration from the 15th to the 22nd of Nisan 63. Where does this come from and what is it supported by? And how can one refute the fair judgment of Schürer 64 that Joseph mentions a custom existing in his time? And the speech itself undoubtedly convinces that what is being conveyed is about usus, and not abusus, - about the rule, and not about the exception. It is positively reliable that the historian counts from the 14th Nisan. According to his 65 clear words (De bello judaico II, 1:3), the Feast of Unleavened Bread among the Jews is called Passover φάσχα παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοιςκαλεῖται); in another place 66 he notes (Antiqu. jud. III, 10:5) that it is on the 14th of Nisan that the sacrifice called Passover is made every year (τῷ δε μηνὶ... Νισ ᾶν... τεσσαρεσκαιδάκοτ ῃ… τὴνθυσίαν, πάσχα λεγομένην, δι’ ἔτους ἑχάστου θύειν ἐνόμισε). In IX, 13:3, Josephus writes even more directly: λεγομένην φάσχα τὰς ἄλλας τὸ λοιπὸν θυσίαςἑπετέλουν ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἑπτά 67. The totality of these data involuntarily inclines us to admit that the 14th of Nisan is considered by Joseph to be the Passover period of unleavened bread and therefore was the first such day between them. But on these same grounds, Prof. Khvolson tries to present the whole matter differently and even turn it to his advantage 68 . He emphasizes that in Antiqu. III, 10:5 and IX, 13:3 Joseph distinguishes the day of the Passover lamb from the Feast of Unleavened Bread, placing the latter on the 15th and the second on the 16th. This is absolutely true, but there is no irreconcilable contradiction here with II.15:1. Peering into the text itself, we find that the author separates the seven-day Passover of unleavened bread from the 14th - the offering of sacrifice 69, which was also Passover 70. The latter is reserved for the Easter sacrifice itself, and for the first he puts τὰς ἄλλας θυσίας 71. From this we get “seven” and “eight,” depending on whether he includes or excludes the day of the slaughter and eating of the lamb. This is as simple as – with the usual “seven” in the Bible – Deut. 16:8 indicates only “six” days of unleavened bread without the seventh, when the feast was celebrated. Along with this, the time of the Passover sacrifice and the beginning of unleavened bread for Joseph coincide chronologically so much that the 14th of Nisan is also the first day of unleavened bread 72 . It is impossible to argue against this in view of the decisive and categorical, although hitherto silent, testimony of Josephus in such exact words 73: μηνός. The question arises: what should we call the 14th of Nisan now, if not the first day of unleavened bread? And wasn’t it then – but for him – appropriate to eat Easter? There is complete agreement here with the dates of the weather forecasters regarding the fact that the sacrifice of the 14th of Nisan was called Passover and was counted among unleavened bread. After this, any further word development is unnecessary and idle. But prof. Khvolson claims that Joseph, being a learned Jew, should have known Jewish laws and, apparently, did not express himself accurately, because he wrote for the pagans. I think that the Romans did not care if Easter was celebrated on the 1st Nisan; and the author, wishing to give a correct idea of ​​the institutions and customs of his people, was obliged to be especially careful in the use of special terms. What Flavius ​​“should have known” is unknown to us and is the purest possibility; one can argue about possibilities endlessly, even to the point of impossibility, and not come to a good result, as always happens in such an area. We have the fact that Joseph directly considers the 14th of Nisan to be the (first) day of unleavened bread - and that’s enough. Let this be an inaccuracy (though not “obvious”); but it also has its reasonable justification. Actually, there could be no question of bringing a lamb on any day of unleavened bread, for this was done the evening before. And if it is said that they coincide, then we are obliged to understand the natural day until midnight, when the eating of unleavened bread began with supper. So simply, the 14th of Nisan turned out to be ὴ πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων, not to mention the fact that in some places in Palestine the leaven was removed in the morning. Finally: is it legal to demand more from the Evangelists than from Josephus, and is it fair to blame them for this? It’s better to make peace based on mutuality - instead of correcting the Gospel text, which has been verified in every possible way, without the slightest reason and without any benefit to the cause. I repeat, even with the proposed correction, the actual dissimilarity remains not weakened by it one iota. Meanwhile, we have evidence that the very expression of the current edition could not give rise to misunderstandings and was not even a blatant insult to the oral and literary language in which such expressions were allowed. Therefore, restoration is not sufficiently motivated and is useless for the essence of the issue. But according to the first three Gospels, the lamb was slain and eaten on the 13th of Nisan, and we agree with this: how can it be converted on the first day of unleavened bread, when the 14th of Nisan is also transformed into it with some effort? In this prof. Khvolson 74 sees an indestructible stronghold for himself and even builds an apology for the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, contrary to the azyms of the Latins 75. I deeply appreciate the author’s good intentions, which do not need confirmation, but I cannot resist the assumption that there is a considerable misunderstanding on this point. It’s quite clear to me that in the eyes of the Jews crowding in front of Pilate’s praetorium, Friday was just the eve of a holiday, but did the weather forecasters really look at it that way? If “yes,” then I absolutely cannot agree with this, because I do not find direct evidence in this direction. All the small Facts of the story speak only about either the offenses of the high priests, or about details that are not necessarily related to everyday life. On the contrary: other indications incline to the idea that the supper was and was considered Easter in the strict sense. The disciples, of course, asked Christ about a legal matter, and the owner of the house did not understand them differently. And the terms φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, without a doubt, everywhere (Mark 14:12,14; cf. 22; Luke 22:8,11,15) contain one meaning - eating the Passover lamb. Equally, everything was done in accordance with a certain Easter ritual. True, the Evangelists report mainly special features that occurred at this time - and here an important exegetical one; moment to understand the meaning of the New Testament sacrament. Hence, drawing the closest parallel causes some controversy 76 ; but above all suspicions, the ritualistic process is presupposed by itself and, in general, the harmony is quite obvious. So, the Lord's Supper was legal - according to the “eternal statute.” Now the only question is time, but it was not chosen arbitrarily, but according to the force of indispensable and mandatory requirements. Then all those restrictions that were applied to extraordinary cases come into their own. Anyone defiled by touching a dead body and on a long journey is commanded to eat lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs on the 14th day of the second month - and yet this is “the Passover of the Lord” (Num. 9:10-12). Under Hezekiah the same thing happened - and yet there was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (2 Chronicles 30:2,13,15); at the same time, a very important deviation from the instructions was not charged (ibid. 18-20), and the king added seven more days (v. 23). Reporting on these events of past history, Josephus makes no reservations and does not mention the movement for a whole month, but writes directly and clearly: “when the Feast of Unleavened Bread came, they sacrificed the so-called Passover” (Antiqu. IX, 13:3; cf. note 67 on p. 34). This means: the legal rearrangement of time 77 does not in the least change either the essence or the dignity of the Easter supper. But Prof. Khvolson claims that Christ, eating the lamb on Thursday, did not commit any offense and acted in accordance with the letter and meaning of the Mosaic decrees. Consequently, in the eyes of His disciples, this was the true and legal Passover, and therefore the 13th of Nisan received from them all the meaning that in this year for others and, at other times, for everyone belonged to the 14th. Thus, the expressions of the weather forecasters do not represent unusually incredible strangeness. Again, the professor’s proofreading turns out to be unnecessary, not to mention its unfoundedness in a textually critical sense. In our opinion, the entire project of Prof. Khvolson about the reconstruction of Matthew’s original in 24:17 is not fatally connected with the hypothesis itself, and the latter does not suffer from the instability of the first; nevertheless, scientific duty does not allow us to concede on this point, no matter how laudable the restorer’s intentions may be. In addition: once we allow one such free amendment, we will no longer have guarantees that another, third, etc. will not be undertaken in indefinitum. The Gospel text will be an object to which anyone who finds it necessary and desirable for their purposes will put their hand to it 78 . I will give a recent example, without deviating too far from the issue at hand. An excellent church historian and expert on ancient Christian literature, but a kind of enfant terrible in constructive theology, is the Berlin prof. Hell. Harnack assures that with the Eucharist Christ simply sanctifies the natural human needs of “bodily satiation” (leibliche Nahrung), since He calls bread and water His body and blood. And the only reason for all this is that οἶνος is not found everywhere and not always firmly 79. Harnack’s opponent, Mr. Jülicher, wanted to compare his originality with him and developed the view that the Eucharistic “sacrament” only marks the fact of death, in which, like bread, the body is “crushed” and blood flows out, like wine is spilled (into the mouth?}. He sees nothing more than this symbolism 80 . From this we see that from small to great there is often only one step, and from great to ridiculous sometimes it is even closer. Therefore, in the first case, you need to be especially careful not to go down, even unnoticed by yourself, down an inclined plane. So does Prof. Khvolson could not resist a single attempt and begins to recommend gospel corrections, one might say, on a grandiose scale. In this case, the theologian is already morally obligated to speak out according to the commandment: speak, and do not keep silent (Acts 18:9), - and we will consider this subject in detail, although neither we nor D. A. Khvolson is closely connected with the harmonistic problem of the Lord's Passover. We mean a very extensive (S. 85-125, 130-132) “application” entitled: “The attitude of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Jews in general towards Jesus Christ according to the news of the weather forecasters, explained with the help of rabbinic sources.” The author was called to examine this issue solely because in the age of the Savior, in his opinion, the Sadducean Easter practice prevailed. Naturally, he did not need to develop it at length in his Russian treatise 81, and this section is the greatest novelty for you. And in itself and in terms of more dramatic and original conclusions, this matter is so important that we allow us to present it with some thoroughness. Prof. Khvolson directly puts forward the position that all Jews are as little to blame for the death of Christ as the Germans were for the execution of Huss or the French for Louis XVI. All the atrocities were committed by the Sadducees, and the Pharisees never persecuted and could not even persecute the Lord, and precisely for the following reasons. In the Sanhedrin they were in the minority, among only those “aspiring to power,” and according to their convictions they had no reason at all to harbor hatred towards the Savior, since in the main and essential points of His sermon He did not contradict them, but was in complete agreement with them. Brought up on the moral principles of haggadic literature, an open-minded Jew, reading the Gospels, feels in his native sphere. Nowhere does he find anything unknown (!?), on the contrary, very often literally similar 83 . Christ called God “His Father,” but this is what the children of Abraham still call Him, who are well aware that in the Old Testament the term “Son of God” is applied to many persons. Christ does not speak about His Messiahship in any of His public speeches; Moreover, the Pharisees could not consider this a mortal crime. The “core and quintessence” of Christ’s teaching lies in the spiritualization of religion; and such an understanding of it was not at all alien to Jewry in general and to the best and noblest among the Pharisees in particular. For example, they expressed the commandment to love one’s neighbors in exactly the same way both before and after Christmas. All clashes boil down to “halachic disputes”, which were so common between rabbis and did not bring anathema to anyone. Even in the most extreme cases - about the holiness of the Sabbath - Christ was fundamentally in solidarity with the Pharisees, and His argumentation is identical almost to the letter. Sometimes, of course, the discrepancy reached a strong aggravation, but here (in Matt. 23:16) the Savior understands only individual Pharisees or separate schools between them, as the issue of divorce (Matthew 5:31 f.; cp. 19:3 f. Mark 10:2 f. Luke 16:18) He decided in the spirit of Shammai and contrary to Hillel. The rabbis did not prohibit swearing and, nevertheless, avoided swearing even to the truth. The commandment about washing one's hands before meals is not original, later, and was not universal, but in Matthew 15:5 ff. (and 23:16), Mark 7:11 something is attributed to the Pharisees in which they held diametrically opposed views 84 . They treated Christ complacently and, perhaps, considerately, inviting Him to dinner (Luke 7:46) and warning Him about dangers (13:31). During the trial of the Apostles, Gamaliel uttered noble words (Acts 5:38ff.), which have world-historical significance. Around 58, the Pharisees, even in the Sanhedrin, directly stood up for (?) Paul (Acts 23:9 ff.) and back in 62 they were “defenders of persecuted Christians.” To put it briefly, between the Pharisees and Christ there is almost heavenly peace and the most ideal love everywhere and in everything. How can we now understand that among the weather forecasters the first are often depicted as enemies of the Lord? Without touching on the “synoptic issue,” Prof. Khvolson is sure that “the gospel stories arose from various sources and at different times” (that is, this is an original modification of the “theory of first records” - isn’t it?). Naturally, they also moved forward parallel to the development of the most ancient Christian communities and their relationship to the Jewish people and their religious parties. At first, the Lord fought only with the proud and arrogant Sadducees, and then he armed himself against some extreme and perverted trends in Pharisaism itself, where, as always among people, there could be “touched up” (= drowned coffins?). Throughout the first century, Christians were in good agreement with the Pharisees. Only over time, more open hostility began - and former friends became mutually hated. Now it is their name that has penetrated into our Gospels. “Under scribes one can think of as many Sadducees as Pharisees; but later, when only the latter were such, the copyist put οἱ φαρισαῖοι instead of the (genuine) οἱ γραμματεῖς. In some cases, one or another of the copyists, of his own free will (?), added οἱ φαρισαῖοι, because it seemed to him (sic!) that it should be them, as is found in Matthew 27:41.” The author does not indicate exactly how far these attempts by dark ignoramuses on the authentic Gospel text extended. Only one thing is obvious, that this must be assumed wherever 85 there is a discrepancy with the theory of mutual respect and favor between Christ and the Pharisees outlined above. He himself notes the story of the healing of a withered man on Saturday (Matthew 12:10 ff. Mark 3:1 ff.; Luke 6:6 ff.), Mark 3:6, 12:3 and Matthew 22:15 ff. Regarding the Lord’s accusatory speech (Matt. 23), prof. Khvolson thinks that “it contains a severe censure 1) against wolves in sheep’s clothing among the Pharisees and 2) against the astringent, soulless and heartless Pharisees,” who were no less crushed by their best colleagues. After such corrections, it is clear that “a completely different picture of the true state of affairs emerges.” It is also inevitable that “not the Jewish people and not the Pharisees were to blame for the death of Christ, but selfish aristocrats-priests, cowardly (seemingly?) adherents of Rome, who trembled before the Roman authorities to ensure their rich incomes, and anticipated in Christ a political agitator, a new Judas the Galilean (- is that all?! -): they and no one else were the executioners of Jesus Christ.” As for the crying people, it was some hundred of the capital's mob - and it did not require the duchess's millions, which the unfortunate General Boulanger had at his disposal. Hiring and bribing her cost hardly more than what was paid to Judas, and then they could borrow from the church chest. Thus, a godless deed was accomplished by the hands of members of the Sadducean party, contrary to the voice of the people and the Pharisees. Blood, it means, has stained very, very few people, and those of whom now almost only one name remains... Here is a brief summary of the contents of the “application”, which has a special value in the eyes of the author. Before making any comments, let us mention a somewhat comic, but not uninteresting circumstance. The reviewer of Khvolson’s book, Prof. Schürer, from whom one might have expected a better review, expressed himself 87 very characteristically about the above: “All this is not new (- absolutely true! -), but this is a new confirmation that as a learned Jew, even guided by impartial judgment, it is difficult to comprehend the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity" (Dies alles ist ja nicht gerade neu; aber es ist ein neuer Beleg dafür, wie schwer es auch einem nach unbefangenem Urtheil trachtenden jüdischem Gelehrten ist, die principielle Differenz zwischen Judenthum und Christentbum zu erfassen). I don’t know if this was said casually, but in any case it’s by the way - and it typically marks the impression that involuntarily arises in the soul when reading this “appendix”. And this evidence is all the more important because criticism cannot be suspected of either insincerity, or the fanaticism of a narrow clergyman, or scientific competence, because Khvolson himself directly heaps all sorts of praise on Schürer and praises him to the skies. On the one hand, the venerable Hebraist does not hide his Orthodoxy, but on the other hand, his rather sharp opposition to “Christian scientists” and obvious contempt for their works somewhat excuse the reviewer’s mistake regarding faith. I think he also had some completely objective justification if he says that the views in question are not new. I refer to Jewish authorities who are well-known and attentive to the Russian ear. Here, for example, is the “European celebrity,” Rabbi Dr. Geiger, whose almost every brochure is titled epochenmachendes Werk by the French academician, the Jew Derenburg 88 . Let's see what he says in relation to the subject that interests us. “When Jesus spoke,” we read in one of these works 89, “religious influence and respect among the people was already completely in the hands of the Pharisees, although the Sadducees and Boethuseites dominated and were in close ties with the rulers. In His desire to raise the whole people to religious equality, He naturally clung to the Pharisees... The soil on which Jesus stood and which He wanted to cultivate was the soil of Pharisees; He fought against its inconsistency (half-heartedness), but fought with its own weapons.” However: what did this strict logic lead Him to? “He himself, like the later Judeo-Christian party, suffered no less (than the Pharisees?) contradictions, now preserving the law, now breaking it,” etc. And all this happened, it seems, only because on a Pharisaic basis He fought against the Pharisaic “half-heartedness” and did not comprehend the world-historical significance of the principles of this party 90. The previously named Derenburg (the elder), “one of the most learned Orientalists in France and one of the best experts on Jewish history and literature,” who tried 91 to remove the stain from the Talmud for the name and identification of Christ with Ben-Sotada, writes 92: “For contemporaries who did not foresee the immeasurable importance of the events in preparation, Jesus was in the beginning (simply) an aggadist - the same as Judas and Matthias, since (sic!) He borrowed His texts not from the Pentateuch, but (only?!) from the prophets. Like these two victims of Herod's tyranny, He was the favorite of the people, who preferred His instructions, full of warmth and life, covered with the inspired words of Scripture, to the dry instructions of (their) teachers. Only later did He begin to work miracles, His conversations acquired a strange coloring, and some of the figurative expressions of the ancient seers acquired such an application that affected and shook the strict beliefs of the monotheistic Jews. “We will probably not be mistaken in defending that the Haggadists most of all helped Christianity at its birth. It was they who gave him many quotations in the form of verses from the prophets applied to the Messiah; They also gave me ideas regarding the branch of David.” It would be possible to find closer parallels, but I hope that the ones given are enough to convince us that the impression made by Schürer has objective grounds. This alone shows that things are not quite right here, and serves as an impressive warning against the method by which ancient and, in part, medieval rabbinical literature should serve as a commentary on the New Testament. There are sufficient experiments of this kind, and they testify that scientific travels lead to nondescript villages because the course was taken incorrectly and the chosen path is incorrect, due to its straightforwardness. Hence the inevitable, albeit unintentional, one-sidedness in conclusions when the premises are falsified. But with his remark Schürer got into considerable trouble and then had to declare that “Khvolson had long since joined the Greek Orthodox Church” 94. If so, then his judgment is either an insinuation, or must be justified scientifically. Unfortunately, the reviewer did not do the latter - and this does not serve to his credit at all. Rejecting the first with absolute decisiveness and considering any such attempts on any part to be unworthy, we are obliged to turn to purely objective considerations. Then it will be discovered that the rich and valuable material is not cleverly located, and only side light falls on it, whereby the shadows become very thick and a somewhat gloomy picture is obtained. In this case, we must strictly distinguish the essential from the detailed, the main from the secondary, so as not to complicate the issue with unnecessary details. In my opinion, the entire “application” of Prof. Khvolson is resolved by the following syllogism: Christ and the Pharisees were united in religious and ethical principles, but the Gospels speak of enmity between them, which could not have happened; therefore, all such news is not authentic in the sacred New Testament writings and they need to be removed and corrected, for these are later errors of ignorant copyists. How easily, simply and directly are all scientific problems solved?! However, why not assume a real difficulty and at least look for other, less risky, ways? Of course, Prof. Khvolson treats the Talmud rather harshly and finds quite a few “wrong accents” in it, but I don’t think that he would have avoided at least the fate of Slonimsky if he had not long been a sincere and convinced Christian, who inspires deep respect for himself for his courageous feat of faith. With all this, both sides remain dissatisfied with his critical corrections, and the reason for this is their groundlessness and logical inconsistency. Regarding the first, our previous comments about Matthew 26:17 retain all their force, and regarding the second, I will note the following observations. The author only slightly touches on the “synoptic problem” and his view on this issue suffers from great ambiguities: the hypothesis of the original records is somehow combined with thoughts about legends, sympathy for the advocates of mutual use leads to guesses about the corruption of one edition over another, consideration of the gradual development in Christianity and Judaism leads to the assumption of various layers on the original basis. In general, this is a very unique “gospel geology”, a truly new “theory of strata”, which would be much more appropriate to take refuge in a course of paleontology, if only impartial New Testament criticism creates such a discipline... But then, where is the solid criterion for accurately distinguishing the genuine and original from the superior and alluvial? In what should we see the voice of pure truth and in what is the brutality of ignorance? It is clear that with such a principle - with only “posse” and “non posse, ergo non esse” - the researcher of the sacred text loses all support, because the realm of the possible is a very conditional thing. We will say that the content of the Gospels in some details is disharmonious with the “rabbinic” news, and mythologists will assure that the former was entirely developed from the latter. It is clear that with such elastic uncertainty, the view itself is not strictly adhered to. Why, for example, should we push the weather forecasters to John and why not the other way around, when regarding the Easter supper only two places would need to be corrected - 13:1, 18:28 - and from the same writer? After all, this is much easier, and we have no legal right to think that the hand of blind ignorance certainly should not have touched the fourth Gospel. The lever turns over, and we come to where we wanted to run from without looking back. At the same time, all our good intentions are destroyed in the most insidious way. If we cannot know with certainty that the πρὸ τὴς ἑορτῆς reading is authentic, then we cannot directly say that Christ celebrated Passover on leavened bread, although this does not follow from the Gospel narratives at all - and the apology turns out to be very dubious. The rabbinic tradition did not preserve for us that - in a collision with the Sabbath - the slaughter of the Passover lamb was transferred to Thursday; There is even less direct evidence that eating it was also allowed at the same time. Can't we rather conclude from this that all the news in this sense is completely suspicious and the authority of the fourth Gospel is much inferior to the weather forecasters in its actual merit? Therefore, its defense 95 - with this assumption of the formation of New Testament creations to the present type - does a rather disservice 96. It can only be at all strong if there is equal scientific trust in the real Gospel text, or else it will always beat itself up with internal contradictions of the most dangerous nature. From the above it follows that the actual need for the designed corrections is a far from reliable basis. Regarding the Passover supper, it would incline us not in favor of John, for he does not agree with the rabbinic traditions and, at least, is not justified by them; - On what basis, in the question of the Pharisees, will we prefer them to the reports of the weather forecasters? Is it here that the beloved disciple of the Lord, more than his predecessors, agrees with and supports the rabbinic testimony? Hardly. In the Gospels, the term φαρισαῖος occurs up to 90 times, and up to 20 of them fall on John, whose relationship with the influential and teaching Jewish classes is even stricter and more impressive. This means that in this case, all four are rebelling unanimo consensu against the rabbinic authorities - and I don’t know how one can justify that the latter were previously rejected, and now they are training the decisive voice of the all-powerful despot. By all this I do not mean to say that the depiction of the state of Jewry in the age of Christ was factually false; my purpose is to point out that the basic principle suffers from considerable instability. For example, the opinion about the relationship between parties and sects and regarding the Sadducean character of the then Sanhedrin is not a “new” idea, not previously expressed by anyone. Prof. himself had never accepted such an honor. Khvolson, but it is quite familiar to theology and is now considered a scientific position, almost indisputable 97. There are also solid arguments for this. Let me at least point out the undoubted observation that among the Synoptics the enemies of Christ are usually “the Pharisees and Sadducees,” while John here mentions “the high priests and the Pharisees.” This difference is naturally explained by the fact that in the era of the Savior it was predominantly members of the Sadducean faction who were in power, and it is very pleasant if Jewish sources confirm this. Known to the New Testament are the special disagreements between these Jewish movements (Matt. 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8) and the strained relations between them (cf. Matt. 22:34; Acts 23:7,9,10). However, it is sacred. the authors clearly and loudly testify to the predominant influence of the Pharisees, who played a prominent role in everything, and - in particular - in plans against the Lord. And there is nothing historically implausible about this. Josephus tells us (Antiqu. XVIII, 3-4): “The Pharisees acquire great respect among the people, and everything relating to worship, prayers and sacrifices is carried out according to their interpretation. With such force the cities testified that both in their lifestyle and in their teachings they follow the best in everything. According to the Sadducees, souls disappear along with bodies, and they no longer observe anything except laws. They consider it a praiseworthy thing to compete with teachers about the wisdom that they themselves follow. Few, although the most distinguished people, have joined this trend, and in their way, one might say, nothing is being done. When they achieve power, against their will and out of necessity they yield to what the Pharisee says, since otherwise they would be intolerable to the people” 100. After this, it is quite natural that Christ most of all had to deal with the Pharisees and weaken their influence, since in mental and religious terms they despotically dominated society. Under such conditions, it was necessary either to maintain a Pharisaic tone and adapt to it, even contrary to convictions, or the struggle was inevitable. It goes without saying that it is impossible to think the first in Christ, and then the second is necessary, as the Gospels, full of stunning peals of anti-Pharisee thunder, narrate. But, they say, in religious and moral matters the Savior adhered to Pharisaic principles; His disagreements concerned small and private points, but the members of this party were extremely peaceful and completely tolerant. And as if all Christianity, in its essence, is only the spiritualization and renewal of the old. The last thought is repeated with particular vigor and more than once in the book by Prof. Khvolson 101, but this firmness gives us the courage to suspect that in this case we are dealing with a misunderstanding, only a large and fundamental one. In it, in our opinion, lies the solution to the mentioned harshness of lighting, and the key to the correct solution of the problem, which can easily take the following form: he taught by appearance, perhaps so, but completely wrong. In one place the author writes: “Christ did not openly speak about His messiahship in any of His public speeches; and even if this had been the case, the Pharisees could not have found in it any crime entailing condemnation to death” 102. I must deeply regret that Mr. Khvolson dwelt so briefly on this subject, and would be heartily glad if he took the trouble to apply his enormous erudition to the development of this topic. I attach extreme importance to it in the study of early Christian history and I think that a lot of interesting and instructive things are hidden in it, immeasurably more important than the study of Jewish parties, political relations and complications, etc. All this concerns appearance, setting, “archaeology”; there the very being is affected 103 . Here we should expect very valuable results regarding the life and ministry of the Lord and the primary fate of Christianity in its struggle with Judaism and the Judaizers. Unfortunately, this subject still constitutes only a scientific problem, due to the unsatisfactory and unsteady nature of previous attempts, not abundant in quantity and not shining in quality. For this reason, I must limit myself to the few and the probable, which will sometimes require confirmation. With all that, I certainly do not agree with both theses of the quoted phrase by Prof. Khvolson, for whom they served far from a good service. Let me draw attention first of all to the title “Son of Man.” No doubt, philologically it means simply a person, 104 but the fact that in the New Testament it occurs up to 88 times, and of these about 85 are in the Gospels, necessarily suggests a special reason and purpose for such frequent use. And it is remarkable that the sacred New Testament writers place a special emphasis on it through certain members in both words (except only John 5:27), for which we do not find examples in the Old Testament books 105. From a philological point of view, some parallel expressions deserve careful consideration. These include: τὰ τέκνα τῆς σοφίας (Luke 7:35; Tregelles on the field and in Matthew 11:19), υἱός εἰρήνης (Luke 10:6), ὁ υἱός τῆς ἀπωλείας ( John 17:12; 2 Sol. 2:3 ), οἱ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπειθείας ( Eph. 2:2, 5:6 ; Col. 3:6 ), υἱὸς παρακλήσεως (Acts 4:36) 106. In addition to all the special nuances that are expensive when interpreting each case, the general meaning of all these and similar sayings is characteristic. Beyond any dispute, they indicate the most essential quality of a given object or person - one that at once and completely exhausts their existence; everything else is just a side point. Thus, in the above examples, people are noted who represent “embodied” wisdom, peace, destruction, resistance, consolation. However, this is self-evident and does not require deliberate argumentation. In the same way, by analogy, the title ὁ υἱὸς του ἀνθρώπου should be understood. They very energetically put forward that Christ was a man of extraordinary properties, an ideal type of the human race, who found in Him the only and exclusive fulfillment. It is not necessary to add how this must have outraged the Pharisees, who considered themselves and were revered among the chosen ones of the whole world! This alone was quite enough for them to be inflamed with enmity towards the brave Teacher from Galilee, from where the prophet supposedly does not come (John 1:46, 7:52). Without a doubt, they guessed that the Lord was also assimilating something more to Himself, although it is quite difficult to determine this exactly. We do not deny the co-presence here of the Paulinistic idea of ​​the “second Adam,” but for it it was necessary to carry in the mind the concept of saving death and life-giving resurrection, and the Jews hardly even foresaw this. It is impossible to assert with certainty that the people fully comprehended the messianic content of the name under consideration. True, in the Talmud it is applied to the Messiah, but it is not known at what time such an interpretation applies. The same is true for Daniel 7:13, for the possibility is not excluded that in it the “Son of Man” is actually called Israel, who is close to God (cf. pp. 15-28 and, especially, 18, 22, 27) contrary to the pagans, symbolized under the forms of beasts. There is only one direct evidence 4 (3) books. Ezra (ch. 13). With all this, it would be a great injustice to think that ὁ υἱὸς του ἀνθρώπου did not include messianic elements at all according to Jewish views. Prof. Stanton refers to the question of Christ at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27; Luke 9:19), where he sees justification for such an interpretation. In his opinion, 107 all sorts of speech would be unnecessary if this qualification were synonymous with the Messiah. The reasoning is extremely erroneous, for the messianic dignity is already conceived by itself, and the whole conversation concerns exclusively the method of understanding it - those predicates that should be connected to it. Therefore, Peter is not limited to simple ones: Σύ εἶ ὁ Χριστός ( Mark 8:29) or ὁ Χριστός τοῦΘεου ( Luke 9:20), but adds: ὁ υἱὸς του Θεου του ζῶντος, (cf. John 6:69) - and only for this he receives an extraordinary blessing (Matt. 16:16 ff.). So, hearing such names, the Pharisees, in any case, should have known that the Savior ascribes to Himself extraordinary rights, immeasurably surpassing any greatness in the human race. Why - at the same time - He did not precisely declare the messianic prerogatives is another matter, and we can be content with the thought that the Lord gradually raised the people from vague and dark fortune-telling to the true contemplation of the personality of the Redeemer of people, who was in every way similar to the brethren (Heb. 2:17). Therefore, the immediate definitions of the title in question become especially important. Here, along with derogatory expressions, there are also those that elevate Him to unattainable heights. The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). Of course, it is for a person, but this is a God-established law that cannot be violated according to one’s needs and considerations. And if Christ assimilates such power to Himself, then He, beyond ordinary limitations, transcends the sphere of human responsibilities for a special relationship with God. By the same token, He authoritatively forgives sins (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24), as the supreme decider in the moral field, to the great horror of the Jewish leaders. With such special instructions, it was impossible to avoid the idea that the humble Nazarene was not only an extraordinary person, but also a being closest to Jehovah, equating Himself with Him. Naturally, all this instilled the idea of ​​divinity, excluding any human convention. And the people partly guessed about this, for they exclaimed in bewilderment: “We have heard from the law that Christ abides forever; How then do You say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man” (John 12:34)? This means that the Jews also somewhat understood that the concepts of the Messiah and the Son of Man are identical; hence the amazement at the mention of death, which was not allowed for the Deliverer. Otherwise, there would be nothing to be surprised if the Lord was not recognized as the promised Reconciler. Was all this really not known to the Pharisees, who were so jealous of all kinds of religious innovations? How could such a claim escape them when John the Baptist was subjected to a formal interrogation in this sense and, it seems, without malicious purposes? We should also dwell on the title ὁ υἱός Δαυ ΐδ. His messianic significance was undeniably generally accepted, but to this Christ added something new and unexpected, which shattered all current ideas. It will be enough for us if we analyze only Matthew 22:41-46 (cf. Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:40-44). The Savior asked how one should think about Christ? When they answered Him that this is the son of David, He - based on Ps. 109:1 - concludes: “If David calls Him Lord; how is He his son?” It is clear that the Redeemer assumed for himself the messianship of divine dignity - and this was precisely before the Pharisees (v. 41). Likewise, no blindness could interpret calling Himself “Son of God” in the sense that in the Old Testament it is applied to many individuals; and it is difficult to comprehend if they do not now find in him what the Jews of Jerusalem saw so clearly almost two thousand years before (cf. John 10:29 ff.) ... The Pharisees' lips were firmly stopped (v. 46), and they had to submit unquestioningly and unconditionally. This they did not do, and their silence was not at all a sign of agreement; Therefore, those thunders that sound with stunning peals in the subsequent accusatory speech of the Lord are quite natural (Matthew 23). And it was impossible to believe that Christ was a kind of dreamer, a frantic fanatic who had renounced the divine basis of the prophets, a dreamer who did not understand and neglected the “joy of Israel.” The Savior Himself gave loud and absolute evidence to the contrary when, regarding the words of Isaiah 61:1,2 in the Nazareth synagogue, he said: Today this scripture will be fulfilled in your ears. And the listeners could not help but understand this instruction, which was quite obvious and energetic (Luke 6:16 ff.). Of course, the crowd became enraged due to the insult of equating it with the goyim, but nevertheless it grasped the essential meaning of the speech. Even if it were not so, events should have dispelled all misunderstandings. The Forerunner of Christ again cites the prophecy of Isaiah to the ambassadors, and John, undoubtedly, asked Him about messiahship in the strict sense (Matthew 11:5,3; Luke 7:22,20). It was clear to everyone that the Lord is the Messiah in the spirit of the aspirations and predictions of God-sent men, a Messiah of exceptional, divine dignity. This thesis seems to be quite firm and undeniable. We briefly dwelled only on a few places, but they also give us the right to draw the necessary conclusions. Messiahship was the most essential idea of ​​the Lord's ministry, the soul of His entire work. His teaching was only a means to reveal this great mystery of messianic deliverance, clarifying it in the main and in particulars. He could not help but talk about this openly, but always directed people towards this in different ways, although not those that were drawn in the Pharisaic mind of the Jewry of that time. And in any case, everyone knew this very well, which is why in Solomon’s porch the “Jews” surrounded the Teacher of Nazareth and said to Him: “How long will we bury our dry land?” If You are ecu Christ, we will not be offended (John 10:24). All individual facts were built on this basis and had their own meaning and justification. For this reason, His relationship with modern leaders of the people was necessarily created and built on the same foundation. It is natural now to ask how the leaders of the faith and life of Israel thought on this subject? First of all, we must emphasize the fact that Jewish scholars do not indicate fundamental disagreements between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the raised point 108. Therefore, we are obliged to accept the views of that era as the common and equal property of both parties. It cannot be said that they are very similar to Christian ones, and the differences concern very important points. Thus, contrary to Wünsche 109, it is rightly believed that the idea of ​​a suffering Messiah does not appear in Jewish documents until the very end of the first century. If the most spiritual among Israel saw in the Coming a deliverer from sins and disasters, then it does not follow from this that, in their opinion, Calvary and the cross will be the sources of salvation. Rather, on the contrary, which the New Testament writings eloquently confirm to us in the stories about the Apostles themselves, who needed to “open their minds” for this (Luke 24:45-47). At most, the Jews had vague fortune-telling about the “servant of Jehovah,” but even then, it seems, in the sense of a servant of Israel for his glory. And in general, the priestly ministry of the Messiah was presented to the eyes of the people in very unclear outlines; at least there are no definite traces of this. Even regarding prophetic dignity, there was considerable hesitation with an inclination to the other side that Christ would be, although higher than Moses, but in his spirit and power (John 6:30-32,34,41; cf. 9:28-29). Therefore, one must agree that the concept of approximate pre-existence was even more obscure and was reduced to almost zero. It was somehow strangely combined with the teaching about the descendant of David, who, already in infancy, would be “taken up from the earth” as a special chosen one of God. At best, there were only the beginnings of docetism and nothing further or higher. Along with this, thought worked more and more in the sphere of purely external ideas, and the imagination vividly depicted a world victor with a sword of death in the shuitz - for the pagans - and with a cornucopia in his right hand - for the children of Israel. The messianic ideal dimmed, materialized and was resolved by faith in a terrible conqueror, the king of the universe, where the Jews will take first places and will prosper without the labors and worries that will fall to the lot of the despicable “atheists” 110. I invite the reader himself to compare these messianic dreams with the true Messiah in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think, however, that it would not be bold on our part to assert that there was a radical contradiction between them - and this is the whole essence of the question, if we take into account the following. Despite all the darkening of the messianic image, it was the most dear and cherished to the heart of every person under the law. One way or another, stronger or weaker, “the joy of Israel” was the subject of the most ardent desires (cf. Acts 26:6-7), entered into the flesh and blood of the Jew, even normalized everyday relationships, which is why, for example, marital infertility was considered in the days of the Savior no less serious than under Elijah. It is self-evident that under such conditions the meaning of the preaching and ministry of the Redeemer could not hide from the Jews. No misunderstandings or misinterpretations are allowed here, since everyone thought about the Forerunner with joyful trembling in their hearts; that food is Christ (Luke 3:15). In view of this, it was messianism that should have served as the basis for the unification of the Savior and the Jewish people, including, of course, the Pharisees. On it, first and foremost, their mutual relationship was determined. It is not difficult to predict even his very character. Gradually, but inevitably, a deep contrast in messianic ideas became clear, leaving no room for either reconciliation or compromise. Under him, it was absolutely necessary for someone to submit to another, to sacrifice himself out of the conviction that his opponent was solely right. Then only and no other way could peace come, good agreement could appear. Under this condition, the people were ready to bow before the Nazareth Teacher of forgiveness and salvation. Unfortunately, all that Israel en masse desired and expected was a flagrant affront to the pure messianic ideal. He wanted a king of glory, a national “local”, an organizer of his own well-being with the enslavement of strangers, who, like dogs, would barely be given a grain from the rulers’ meals. If the Lord had accepted this, His external success would have been ensured (cf. John 6:15, etc.), for which there are sufficient justifications. We know that under the procurator Fade, Theudas attracted large crowds, promising to divide the Jordan and thereby make a convenient passage across the river (Jos. Flavii Antiqu. XX, 5:1) 111. Likewise, a certain Egyptian false prophet gathered around himself up to thirty thousand (De bello judaico II, 13:5. Antiqu. XX, 8:6) 112. And, in general, there were quite a few seducers who easily aroused the Jews with various “signs of freedom” (De bello jud. II, 13:4) 113. And in the last uprising, the primary role was played by faith in the “ruler of the universe” (De bello jud. VI, 5:4) 114. It is clear without words how contrary all this was to the teachings of the Lord Savior and how little room for agreement these popular dreams left. And if they point us 115 to Bar Coheba - to convince us that the messiahship of the Redeemer could not be a stone of temptation - then we see in this exalted fanatic a confirmation of our thought. He acted in the name of national desires, the worldly, political glory of Israel; The Lord denied it and eliminated it in the most decisive manner, preaching mutual submission, rendering of Caesar's to Caesar, etc. He avoided any occasions that would testify to His solidarity with such expectations, and used all measures to eradicate popular prejudices, forbidding even the spread of His messiahship, since it was understood falsely and could be misinterpreted. And when - at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem - the joyful cries of the “Son of David” shook the air, bitter tears flowed down His divine face (Luke 19:41), because it was the delight of flesh and blood, but not a revelation from the Father. If so, then the exact opposite should have come into force. It was necessary for the Jews to purify themselves spiritually, irrevocably renounce their prejudices and unquestioningly follow the call of the Savior: come after Me! Unfortunately, he found a response only in the despised tax collectors, who turned out to be more children of wisdom and Abraham. The Pharisee nobility possessed neither the simple-minded sincerity of Nathanael, nor the prophetic insight of Simeon, nor the pious sensitivity of Anna. Not having the noble courage to sing to herself “Now you let us go,” she decided to crush the rebellious one according to the principle: whoever is not with us is not only against us, but also our worst enemy. Christ, unlike the Sadducees, demanded exactly the opposite; and it is natural that, given the stiff-neckedness of the Pharisees’ leaders, He could not be their friend, and they hated Him with all their being. For this reason, His polemics did not concern private points, individual opinions, school disputata; it shook and destroyed the entire Pharisee-Jewish system, and was directed against the “leaven” itself. Of course, He recognized the teaching authority of the Pharisees as only the mouth of Moses (Matt. 23:2,3); however, along with this, He no less loudly and firmly proclaimed that they only fornicated the throne of the great prophet. Before these thunders of divine wrath, all party shades faded away - and all the inveterate nationalists rallied in one criminal conspiracy against the Lord. They interpreted their cherished prerogatives from the angle of the nobility of the blood of Abraham and identified them to the point of indistinguishability. Divine promises merged with purely racial lusts, and any attempt on the latter seemed to be a violation of the sacred, an insult to Jehovah and His law. And so it turned out that the Son of God was rejected by those who considered themselves the children of God, par excellence. When the lamp that burned in John was forcibly extinguished (John 5:35), the Giver of light, unbearable for eyes accustomed to darkness, could not expect anything better. Were these organs of the mind and heart of the Pharisees more efficient than those of the Sadducees? If they were the same and if they were equally in need of “shrinking,” then their feeling before the radiance of truth, without a doubt, was homogeneous, both extensively and intensely. School differences disappeared, and peace came between the enemies in this matter, which is also justified by the facts of Pharisaic solidarity with the Herodians (Matthew 22:15-16; Mark 3:6, 12:16). And this is all the more so since the fundamental contradiction related to the very basis of the views. No matter how secret the Lord’s speeches were, the listeners “understood that He was speaking about the Father” (John 8:27) in the strictest sense, that He was assimilating to Himself rights immeasurably higher than Abraham’s (John 8:53-58), and therefore deserves beating (John 8:59). And the “Jews” declared: We do not place heat on You for a good deed, but for blasphemy, because You, this man, have created God for Yourself (John 10:33). Even according to the most favorable judgment, these were “strange words” that should not be listened to (John 6:60), and the one who spoke them was a deceiver of the people (John 7:21, 8:47). But, supposedly, this was not a mortal crime, for which it was required that the mesith expressed the intention to incline to idolatry (Deut. 8: 2-12, esp. v. 3 and 7, 8; cf. ibid. 18:20 ff.) 116. Let it be so, although not entirely; - Didn’t the Jerusalemites accuse Christ that, by destroying and trampling on the Sabbath (John 5:16, 7:19-23,32), He wanted to introduce Samaritan wickedness (John 8:48). Were they not sure that His preaching was suitable only for the Hellenic dispersion and the pagans (John 7:35)? This alone was enough for various teachers of Israel to cry out with fury: take him out of the land: for it is not fitting for him to live (Acts 22:22). To everyone and in everything, the Lord was hated precisely and exclusively because of His messiahship 117, as a villain (John 18:30), who made Himself the Son of God (John 19:7), who crushed and disgraced their dreams, a “deceiver” (Matthew 27:63), who did not justify His claims to the supremacy of a political nature. And the high priests, not in spite of the Pharisees, demanded from Pilate: not niches, King of the Jews, but as He Himself said: I am the King of the Jews (John 19:21; cf. Mark 15:12, etc.). He had to die according to the law and for the sake of the law (John 19:7). The political motive (Luke 23:2,5,14) was an incidental moment put forward in the interests of the strongest influence on the stubborn hegemon (John 19:12) 118. From this point of view, traitors could cunningly hide under the guise of serving God and the crowd sincerely cried out their godless “Crucify!”, incurring upon themselves the full burden of sin for innocent blood. But enough! It's time to start tying up loose ends and formulating my thoughts. We believe that the basis and essence of the Lord’s work was messiahship, the deliverance of His people. As such, He naturally sought from His followers unconditional self-denial and absolute recognition of His principles. But Jewry, both in small and in great ways, turned out to be hard of hearing, petrified in the heart, darkened in mind. For this reason, all of them, without the slightest difference, had to either sacrifice themselves once and for all, or hostility was inevitable. The first did not happen, and then all the necessary results flowed just as inevitably. Only two of them are important for us. Christ, seeing such universal blindness, could not remain indifferent to the trampling of that for which His very appearance in the flesh was. He exhorted, convinced, denounced in order to win them over to His side. Ignorance was still somewhat excusable, but stubbornness was only criminal. Therefore, His speeches take on a menacing tone, His relationships are colored by direct and decisive struggle. And the first place among these godless heads belonged to those who knew more and influenced more energetically, and these were the Pharisees - strict rigorists in the interpretation of the law 119. It is clear that the greatest clashes occurred with them and the most deadly arrows rained down on them. The anti-Pharisee character of the Gospels is a deeply and completely historical feature, which in no way excludes other news about the grouping and position of the Jewish parties at the beginning of our era. In it they themselves find their meaning and true illumination, but not the other way around. This, in our extreme understanding, is the whole mistake of Prof. Khvolson with all the brilliance of his scientific apparatus. At the same time, it is easy to imagine the relationship of opponents to Christ. They considered Him an insult and desecrator of everything dear and holy, for to the Lord it was “an abomination that causes desolation.” Hence the enmity was the most fundamental, reduced to a dilemma: either they or He. Whether they were in power is all the same. They desired and prepared what others did, helped them and “deigned” no worse and no less than Saul (Acts 8:1, 22:20). The peacefulness and tolerance of the Pharisees should not count. If they were ready to split their foreheads over the question: the chicken or the egg came first; if they were not averse to washing the sun itself, which was not clean enough; if in small disputes they often resorted not only to argumentum baculinum, but also to argumentum gladii; if they established two holidays in memory of their victory over the Sadducees in a dispute about some particular points 120: - then without much difficulty one can understand their feelings towards the “impudent” preacher, who so cruelly crushed those who rested on the law and the privileged keepers of the keys of the kingdom. They were the leaders of the opposition, the soul of the entire conspiracy, and all the intrigues came from them 121. And in the gospel narratives the only example of an exclusively Sadducean initiative has been preserved in the attempts on the life of the resurrected Lazarus (John 12:10) for party reasons 122; in other respects, the long hand of the Pharisees is visible everywhere. They were glad to accidentally disgrace the Sadducees (Matthew 22:34; Mark 12:28; Luke 20:30), which provided them with authority among the people, but in hatred of the Lord they surpassed them and worked in agreement and unanimously, even if for different private motives. And their enmity was all the more inexorable, the execution of the Nazarene all the more just, because they thought to base themselves on legal grounds and could base their views on the letter of Scripture 123. They thirsted for His death and achieved it, and therefore are guilty of it no less than the Sadducean priesthood, as well as the people submissive to them 124, having rejected the will of God for themselves (Luke 7:30). That is why the blood of Golgotha ​​still cries out to heaven, meanwhile, Pharisaic liberalism has long reigned unapologetically throughout all Jewry... Everything that has been said now is also applicable to the problem of the similarity between Christianity and Pharisaism in the religious and moral sphere, which Jewish scholars have been telling the world since the early days, assuring that the Lord borrowed a lot from the “second restorer of the law” Hillel. We have already sufficiently revealed the fundamental difference between messianic views, to which all other religious and ethical questions converge and from which follow. Naturally, in the latter there could be no internal affinity between Christ and the Pharisees, just as two streams, originating from different springs and flowing in opposite directions, will never merge into one river. By the root and the plant: either make a good tree, and its fruit is good: or make an evil tree, and its fruit is evil: by the fruits the tree will be known (Matthew 12:33). If the teaching of the Savior was the “quintessence” of something, then in any case it did not contain the “essence” of the Pharisees. And, to put it similarly, He actually spoke “in another language” - and it is a little honor for us when we are unable to unravel and comprehend its meaning and significance. I will try to show this on a particular point raised in the study of Prof. Khvolson. It is about comparing “Jewish and Christian love for neighbors” and is conducted in a polemical tone. The core of the question is the term chaber (חבר), which is not understood in the same way. Some think that he embraces only members of the highest, educated class, possessing the key of understanding, and excludes the despicable rabble of the ignorant, the cursed people (cf. John 6:48,49). With such a view, not even all of Israel will be “neighbors,” let alone the pagans. Prof. Khvolson 125 energetically protests against such an interpretation, and one of the compilers of the newest Jewish dictionary to the Old Testament (Lpzg. 1893), Karl Siegfried, is also strongly criticized, although the author of the work under review only reads his articles and reads “Theologischer Jahresbericht” throughout. We are not defending anyone, but we must note that all these thunders should be directed primarily at the illustrious Rabbi Abraham Geiger, who seemed to think exactly the same way 126. Let's not argue about the decision itself, because for our purposes it is indifferent. D. A. Khvolson refers to the saying of the Mishnah (Tr. Baba-Kamma V, 4), where it is stated: “an ox that offended (with its horns, of course) its chaber,” etc. 127 From here it turns out that even an animal is a “neighbor” to an animal, and the Jewish doctrine on this subject acquires immense universalism. How easily and simply it is identified with the Christian teaching about love (cf. Iacob. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, II, S. 9 to חַבְדָא - this is already clear by itself. But, despite all this evidence, we still do not find here either solidarity, no similarity. In fact, let us think more deeply about this position “about the bull” - we will discover that there is hardly very much universalism in it. It expresses only the idea that persons of the same class and objects of the same category are “close” to each other, which, without a doubt, is quite fair. But in what relation these “classes” and “categories” stand is a very big question for the simple reason that pots are made of clay, and yet “they are not comrades with cauldrons.” Rather, we get a conclusion that is not particularly favorable to the Jewish mind. Transferred from inanimate objects and animals to intelligent beings, the concept of chaber here should have had the same narrow meaning of divisions of race, caste, party, school, etc. It necessarily included the moment of isolation according to particular characteristics of opinions and states, gradation into close circles of a certain direction 128. And if the Am-ha-arez mutually considered themselves neighbors, it does not in any way follow that they were such in the eyes of the Jewish nobility, or vice versa. That is why the rich young man, “wanting to justify himself,” of course, thought to confuse Christ with his question and then dodged his essence with an ambiguous phrase (Luke 10:29,37). But let our interpretation be biased and incorrect. Let us assume that the idea of ​​savory is extremely universal. Such a meaning can belong to it only if it denotes all creation, equally dependent on God for its origin and being. Its inevitable and necessary postulate is the concept of creation 129; The natural result is that everyone and everything is equally not independent and not original. I don’t think that one can go far in love with such principles, which involuntarily resemble socialist dreams of universal brotherhood, alien to any theological lining. The advantage of this system was clearly revealed by Ap. Paul, when he was forced to take the point of view: who can resist His (God’s) will (Rom. 9:19 ff.)? From the same mixture, vessels are created both for honor and not for honor, and each must be content with his position. This does not merge them at all, but directly separates them into all existing categories of being. Thus, at the very root lies the logical death for chaber universalism. Then: and in the scope of its application it is absolutely not connected with the concept of love. The basis of unification in it is purely external - creation from nothing - and therefore in itself cannot be the basis for close unity, as long as there is no internal attraction. If all people are born of wives, this does not mean at all that every person will love everyone else. But the content of chaber does not indicate this necessary force for mutual identification - and it does not oblige it at all. There is still a whole abyss from here to true love. So: even in the best case, the illusory Jewish universalism is only external, mechanical, devoid of everything that could make it alive and active. This is absolutely not the case in the Christian teaching about our neighbor, who cannot be separated from his brother. It is entirely based on the idea of ​​the love of God, revealed in the Son and unconditionally necessary for all children by their very position. Regardless of being sinful and unworthy before the Lord, we are all delivered by the death of the Redeemer and - through faith and communication in the sacraments - we enter into the closest union with Him. In this case, we actually merge with the Reconciler and through the Head - the Son of God - and ourselves become children of God. It is clear that then all believers are already brothers with each other if they are equally children of the Heavenly Father. But just as infinite love was the source of redemption, so it naturally and continuously functions in every Christian, in all movements of his thoughts and hearts up to and including the knowledge of God. For God Himself is not accessible to human comprehension and is revealed only in the Son and through the Son (John 1:18, 6:41; Matt. 11:27 = Luke 10:22) according to the power and action of His love for us. Therefore, we can achieve this knowledge only through union with the Lord through love, in order to understand the Father in Him. This is where Ap comes from. John says: if you do not love, you do not know God, for God loves (1 John 4:8). In general, love really constitutes an essential property of a confessor of Christ, because without it we become separated from the Savior, and brotherhood itself collapses irrevocably and completely. On the contrary: when we unite with Him in love, we are also imbued with it towards all those close to us in Christ, since through it alone our union with God and among ourselves is established. The teaching of Christian love rests exclusively on the soteriological (messianic) principle, and the commandment about it, ancient in concept (1 John 2:7), is new (John 13:34; 1 John 2:8) in its basis and is actually implemented only from the moment of the salvation of mankind by the cross on Calvary. It was even more original and unheard of for the Jewish view, which does not have the slightest resemblance to it, because it denies the very foundation - the Messiah in Christ. There is no need to add how illusory all the talk about borrowing or His solidarity with anyone is. In Christianity - the love of the Son for people and theirs - for brothers, in Judaism - the creation of everyone by God and the homogeneity of all created things. As a result of this, the Christian concept of one’s neighbor cannot be so meaningless, elastic and unstable. It marks the true and necessary union of believers among themselves through the Redeemer, as members through their Head. It refers first and closest to the confessors of the Crucified One, who are all brothers because they are one in the Lord. Once this connection with Christ ceases, the neighbor becomes a false brother, a spy (Gal. 2:4), stealing into the church fence in sheep's clothing. Christian brotherhood is inconceivable other than “in Christ” and “for Christ’s sake,” and all dreams of Christian universalism under the forms of altruism and other “isms,” in our opinion, are the fruit of a pure misunderstanding, an unworthy or unconscious adaptation to the trends and trends of “this age.” Christian brotherhood does not diffuse into all humanity and is not identical with it, no matter how proud Jewry may be of this. For him, every believer is inevitably a neighbor above his father and mother, since he is a Christian, but not at all because he was born and lives in the world. And so it turned out that Ap. Paul says: do good to everyone, and especially (μάλιστα δέ) to those who are close to you in the faith (Gal. 6:10), and Judaism commands: always loving all creation equally, not excluding every “beast,” even in the literal sense of the word... We will not draw parallels between the systems outlined, we will not compare them on their merits, and we leave it to others to think whatever they want. But we have the right to say that there is not a single communication between them, because all their foundations are different. If the pagans do the same, this does not yet show that they are identical with Christians, who grow in their universalism only by becoming like the Father (Matthew 5:48) through the Son and perfecting themselves by assimilating the gifts of the Spirit. After that, I think, prof. Khvolson will not consider it insolence when I change his harsh formula regarding theologians 130 in this way: “desire finds similarity where there is none, blinds even the most insightful and learned Orientalists.” However, this also has its good side. At least, this explains quite satisfactorily all the cases cited by the author of peaceful and - outwardly - friendly relations between Jews and Judeo-Christians. In the eyes of the children of Israel, the latter were the same worshipers of Moses, only differing in some peculiar opinions, regrettable dreamers who believe in “some” 131 Crucified One. But when the matter was clarified, and the picture changed beyond recognition, for which we have ample evidence in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. And even if not so, the few exceptions should not be counted and for the sake of them the course of events should not be distorted. This time, and then the statement that “Christ did not say anything and teach nothing that the true Pharisees could not sign, and did not do anything that they should be dissatisfied with” 132 is completely untrue. Quite the opposite. The entire ministry of the Lord was a living denial of Pharisee-Jewish ideals, a continuous and loud denunciation of the spiritual leaders of Israel. His teaching was not only disparate, but also diametrical to the Pharisaic doctrine, simply because its exclusive center was the personality of the Redeemer, the incarnate Son of God. Meanwhile, the Pharisees did not want to recognize Him as a prophet (John 7:41, etc.) and for confessing Him as the Messiah they threatened with excommunication from the synagogue (John 9:22, 12:42). There could not be de facto agreement here; it cannot and should not be found even now, since a fundamental opposition prevails, since without Christ, as the Son of God, Christianity does not exist, and without recognizing Him as such there is no true confessor... This means that the Gospels in their present form express a genuine and historically necessary picture of the relationship between the Savior and the Jews, even if it has a Pharisaic coloring. Therefore, any corrections and conjectures, according to the most lenient assessment, are unnecessary and rest on a misunderstanding. Of course, it is possible to remove individual words and entire phrases from New Testament texts; Unfortunately, history itself cannot be erased or changed. In conclusion, let me recall one person to illustrate my opinion. This is Saul, who to some extent was the typical embodiment of all modern Pharisaism, the focal point of the rays of this torch of Israel, as a Pharisee, the son of the Pharisees (Acts 23:6). He was a Jew of the purest blood (Rom.11:1; Phil.3:5) and a Pharisee of the most undoubted standard. From a young age (ἀνατεθραμμένος) he tried to master the teachings of the first authorities, like the “great” Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and phenomenally succeeded among all his peers in knowledge and in passionate attachment to the traditions of his fathers (Gal. 1:14). A Pharisee, blameless in legal righteousness and in law (Phil. 3:6,5), he was truly the “quintessence” of these chosen ones. What came out of this is known to everyone, but it will suffice for us to point out that he himself called himself a blasphemer, a persecutor and an offender (1 Tim. 1:13), who with furious fury tormented the Church of God (Gal. 1:13, Acts 9: 1-2,21) and tried to destroy it from the face of the earth (Gal. 1:26). And he became so for no other reason than precisely out of jealousy (Phil. 3:6) and under the influence of the lessons of his liberal and tolerant mentor, for already beyond the threshold of his school he deigned to kill Stephen and took care of the convenience of the executioners, holding their clothes (Acts 7:58, 8:1, 22:20). We must conclude from this that true Pharisaism necessarily (cf. Acts 26:9) led only to ferocious cruelty towards Christianity and could not be a step towards it. It was not in his name that Paul’s conversion took place. On the contrary, he clearly certifies that for this it was necessary for him to die by the law for the law (Gal. 2:19) and reject his past, and all the advantages turned out to be loss and waste (Phil. 3:7,8). And when the Crucified One appeared to him in all His majesty before Damascus, Saul was completely crushed and smashed to smithereens. Lord, what do you want to do to me (Acts 9:6)? - it was a painful groan of despair, the cry of a man who had lost every point of support, collapsed with all his property. Christianity triumphed in it only after all the old foundations had been ground into powder, and shone on the ruins of this absolute devastation. And the terrible persecutor became the most glorious of the Apostles only because he ceased to be a great Pharisee and the Jew Saul was absorbed and disappeared without a trace in the confessor Paul. This did not exist in the age of the Savior, just as we do not find it now. What will happen next is a matter of faith, not knowledge - faith in the apostolic word of the former Jew (Rom. 11). In any case, the veil will be taken away from the hearts of Israel not due to the Pharisees’ principles and the recognition of their identity with Christian principles, but solely through the unconditional assimilation of the immutable and immutable truth: the end of the law is Christ in righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4), by renouncing everything and forever... Die religiose Alterthumer der Bibel, Munchen 1869, S. 635. Mèmoires de l'Acadèmie Impèriale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, VII-e serie, tome XLI, No. 1 : Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag Seines Todes nach den in Uebereimstimmung gebrachten Berichten der Sinoptiker und des Evangelium Johanms, nebst einem Anhang: Des Veihaltniss der Pha i aer, Sadducaer und der Juden uberhaupt zu Jesis Christus nach den met Hilfe rabbinischen Quellen ei lauterten Berichten der Synoptiken. Von D. Chwolson professor eneritas. St.-Petershourg 1892, S VIII + 132. 1875, volume II (No. 9–10), pp. 430–488; 1877, vol. I (no. 5–6), pp. 821–876; 1877, vol. II (no. 11–12), pp. 557–610; 1878 vol. I (no. 3–4), pp. 352–419. Père Didon. Jesus Christ, tome second. Paris 1891, p. 402–405, t Carsus Sripturae Sacrae; libri introductiorii. vol.III: Introductio specialis in singulos Novi Testamenti libros Rudolphi Cornely S. I., Parisiis 1886, p. 268–273. Cursus Scr. Sacrae; commentariorum in Nov. Test. pars I, vol. 1: Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, auctor Josepho Knabenbauer S. I., Parisiis 1893, p. 402–418. Cp. and in approx. 25 on page 13. (note: footnotes 25 and 26) Der Tag des letzten Abendmahles Christi. Eine harmonistisch‑exegetische Studie von Joseph Kreschnička in “XX Jahres-Bericht des niederosteinеіchischen Lande-Real-und-Obergymnasiums Horn 1892”. Druck von F. Berger in Horn 1892 Kurzgefasster Commentar zu den Vier hedigen Evangelien von Franz X. Pölzl . IV-er Bnd.: Kurzgefasster Coumientar zur Leidens – und Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu Christi, Graz 1892, S. 41‑54 et passim. For the latest work, see the first book of the Tlieologische Quartalschrift for 1893 (pp. 156–162) review by the Tübingen prof. Belzer, who, disagreeing with the author, hints that the deviation of the weather forecasters from the John dates - Easter on the 13th and the crucifixion on the 14th of Nisan - is explained by the special goals of the first three Evangelists. This idea is only slightly emphasized by the reviewer, but one can predict in advance the most brilliant failure for it. By the way, we consider it our duty to warn that we are deliberately limiting ourselves to indicating only a few of the latest works, where those interested can easily find a listing of the entire extensive literature on the subject. Pölzl, pp. 238–239, 241–242. Kreschnička S. 39–40. Pesachim VIII, 2 in G. Surengusius: Legum mischnicarum pars altera, Amstelaedami 1699, p.164 Talmudische Studien, XIV: “Die im X. T. bezeugte Unreinheit heidnischer Hauser nach judischem Begriff” in Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirihe, 1874, I, S. 1–4. Cp. in G Surenhusius: Legum mischnicarum pars VI, Amstelaedami 1703, p. 210–211 (where – in the Latin translation of Ohololh XVIII, 7 – there is an undoubted error: imundae um, immundae). Maimonides remarks: nos hic non stricte attendimus immunditatem habitationis, sed duntaxat immunditatem mortui, and Bartepora explains: habitationes, quae in terra Israelitica notae sunt, immundae sunt, quia in iis abortus suos sepelire solent. And according to Josephus (Antiqu. III, 11:3), uncleanness lay on the surface for seven days. Flavii Josephi opera, edited by Ben Niese, vol. I (Verolini 1887), b. 210. The example of Judith (Judith.12:7,9) cannot prove the opposite simply because, after washing, she again returned to the camp of Holofernes and was still clean. See also Emil Schürer, Ueber φαγειν το πασχα Ioh. 18, 28, Giessen 1883, pp. 22–24. Cnf. Seb. Schmidt, Tractatus de Paschale, Francofurti ad Moenum 1685, p. 170 sq. 196 sq. 401–402. On this occasion, let us make a remark regarding one apologetic excursion by Prof. Khvolson. As we learn later, according to his theory, Christ ate the Passover on the 13th of Nisan, when there was no need to eat unleavened bread. That is why he says that the sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated on leavened bread, which is also designated by the word άρτος; (Passamahl, S. 54–55. “Chronicles” 1878, I, pp. 418–419, etc.). But, postponing the supper on the basis of a strict and precise understanding of the law that nothing should remain from the Passover lamb until another day, both the Savior and others, of course, wanted, in relation to it, to observe the legal regulations, “all the statutes regarding the Passover” (Num. 9:12). And among these, the commandment about the use of asims was clearly indicated (Exodus 12:8; Numbers 9:11; cf. Ezekiel 45:21), as absolutely obligatory for the Easter rite. Otherwise, עָלָיו will undoubtedly be given in favor of what Deut. 16:2 says about chagigah. Therefore: if the celebration itself was moving, unleavened bread was also needed with it. Then: from the very story of the weather forecasters it is clear that the events at Christ’s Supper took place according to the developed Easter ritual. This is already indicated by the cups, although certain rules about their establishment have not been preserved and we do not know when and why they came into practice. Once this detail was observed, it was even more necessary to be faithful about unleavened bread. There is no need to add that άρτος is too non-case support for any constructions. Suffice it to recall that in the LXX unleavened bread is often called άρτος άζυμος – άζύμων – άζυμίτης (Ex.29:2; Lev.2:4, 7:25; Num.6:19), and leavened bread differs from them as άρτος ζυμίτης cf. Lev.7:3 (13). It is very characteristic that the name ή λεγομένη προσαγορευομένη – ϰαλουμένη – πασχα Josephus always calls the sacrifice of the Passover lamb on the 14th of Nisan. See note below. and to approx. 19, 62, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73 on pp. 10, 34–36. For this section, see study E. Sch ü rer 'a Über φαγειν το πασχα S., 11–21 Cp still in Cornely, p. 271(8), and Knabenbauer, p. 408–409. So decisively in all editions B 3. See, for example, Vetus Testamentum, ed. WITH . Tischendorf, t. I, Lipsige 1860, b. 567–568. Ed. V. Loch ex codice Vaticano, Ratishonae 1866, p. 430. The Old Testament in Greek, ed H. Swete, vol. II, Cambrige 1891, p 113. No options available. Wed. approx, and approx. 19, 67, 73 on pp. 10, 34, 36. It is remarkable that Josephus also speaks of the cleansing of the Jews, together with their wives and children, before the sacrifice of the 14th of Nisan, called Passover. Antiqu. XI, 4: 8 in Opera ed. Ben. Niese III (Bero in 1892). 25: ένστάσης δέ τῆζ τῶν άζυμων έορτῆς μηνί τϖ πρώτω … πᾶς ό λαος … ϰαί την έορτήν ήγαγον άγνεύοντες μετά γυναιϰῶν ϰαί τέϰνων τῷπατρίῳ νόμῳ, ϰαί τήν πάσχα προσαγορευομένην ϑυσίαν τετράδι ϰαί δεϰάτη τοῦ αὐτος μηνόζ "έπιτελέσαντες" ϰ.τ.λ. Prof. A. A. Nekrasov. Reading the Greek text of the Holy Gospels, Kazan 1888, p. 88. 144–148 Passow (Rost und Palm), Handwörterbuch d. Griech. Sprache I, 1 (Lpzg. 1841), S. 9b. Wilkii–Grimm, Lexicon graeco-latinam in libros Novi Tetamenti, Lipsiae 1888, p. 3a. Cp. at prof T.K. Abbott (English translator of some of Mr. Khvolson's works), Essays chiefly on the Original Greek of the Old and New Testaments, London 1891, p. 161–162. 70–71. In the Ethiopian translation (Novum Tcstamentum D. N. et S. Jesu Christi aetiopice. Ad sodieum manuscripto um fidem edidit Thomas Pell Platt. Londinii 1830) it reads: “arve fasika”, and “arve tsahay” (for example, in Luke 4:40) means “sunset”. It turns out that “Easter evening” is meant here; But why not understand this expression in the sense of עֶדְבפֶםַח, which certainly indicated the eve? Mark 15:22 defines it as προσάββατον, and for this cf. Judith.8:6: χωρίς προσαββάτων ϰαί σαββάτων. One could cite the mention of “Great Saturday” in XIX, 31, which causes so much annoyance to harmonists. So, Kreshnichka reads in this place έϰείνη and τού σαββάτου is understood in the sense of “Easter week”, no matter what day it begins (op. cit., S. 48–49), but this is the purest fabrication ex necessitate. If he does not eliminate the accepted authoritative text, in this case his interpretation extremely weakens and even distorts the thought of the Evangelist, because the latter, apparently, wants to emphasize how it was necessary to hurry, since the Sabbath was already approaching. “Week” explains absolutely nothing. From here it is much more natural to see in the entire phrase an indication that Easter fell on the seventh day. However, prof. Khvolson insists that this is not why he is called “great.” Since his hypothesis also provides the key to the mysterious δευτεροπρώτου Lk. 6: 1, then I consider it very probable, although the reviewer of his book E. Schürer (“Theologische Literaturzaitung”, 1893, No. 7, 183) expresses himself rather skeptically when expressing his opinion (cf. his Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitlter Iesu Christi, Zw. Th., Lpzc. 1886, S. 394). The essence of Khvolson’s view (Passamahl, S. 59–65; cp. "Christian Reading", 1875, II, 476-480), the beginnings of which can also be found in Delitzsch (Horae hebraicae et talmudicae zu Luc. VI, 1 in "Zeitschrift fur luth. Theologie", 1876, IV, 595-597), is that during the period of the public ministry of the Lord the commandment about the sheaf (Omer) from the ears of the harvest “on the next day schabbath” (Lev. 23:11) was understood literally in the sense of our first Sunday (cf. Geiger, Urschrift, S. 138–139; “Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wis enschaft und Leben”, Breslau 1863, Zw. Jahrg., S. 52 flg. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 137–138) after Easter (called δευτεροπρώτη ϰυριαϰή by Eustathius). From him the counting (Sephira) of the seven weeks (Lev.23:15,16) until Pentecost was carried out, and therefore schabbath, as the starting point for calculations, received important significance, like μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα (John 19:31) The next Saturday was the first in the Sephira and the second after the Passover holiday and, naturally, was called “second-first”. All this is all the more plausible because this term was, of course, not invented by the Evangelist, who used the technical language of modern Jews. But it goes without saying that the first Saturday will not be included in the total number of 49 days, and then for me some of the words of Prof. Khvolson are very unclear. He writes (Passamahl, S. 65 init.): “The Saturday of Easter was the first of the 50 days that had to be counted (der erste der 50 zu zählenden Tage); then they counted seven weeks and not by weeks as such, but by seven Saturdays, of which the first after Easter (von denen der erste nach dem Osterfeste) was truly δευτερόπρωτον.” It seems to me that the author here has a contradiction with himself (cp. S. 60 s. fin) much greater than what he so sharply emphasizes in Matthew 26:17, and then Pentecost would then fall on Saturday. Shouldn't it be corrected this way: von der zählte man 50 Tage and nach dem des Osterfestes? Without this nothing works. Wed. Gornely, b. 269. Knabenbauer, b. 404.Br. F. Westcott. An introduction to the study of the Gospels, London 1888, p. 347. In the last book on our question, such assumptions are made (pp. 343–349) that it is difficult to believe how the undoubtedly respectable Westcott could have written them. In his opinion, according to all the Gospels, Christ celebrated the supper on the 13th of Nisan and, moreover, on Wednesday (cf. Farrar’s Life of Jesus Christ, translated by Prof. A.P. Lopukhin, St. Petersburg, 1885, p. 494, note 4): credat, Judaeus Apella! In this section, we also take into account the considerations of Prof. Khvolson in Passamahl, S. 6 10, and in “Christian Reading” 1875, II, 453–459, etc. Not without the desire of the enemies of Christ. Judas waited for an opportune time (Matthew 26:16; Mark 14:11; Luke 22:6). This means that he found the chosen moment suitable and in keeping with the interests of his patrons, who, of course, discussed the matter. The presence of “spira” (John 18:3) shows that the high priests managed to secure themselves from the civil authorities, trying to convince them that they were acting in its own interests - to eliminate the popular unrest so unpleasant to the procurator. Therefore, it can be considered another question: who exactly “took” the Lord (cf. John 18:12)? There is no doubt that the correct Slavic reading of Mark 14:51 is not “a young man (as is printed now), but “young men” (see in the “New Testament” of St. Metropolitan Alexy according to the photographic edition of 1887 by Archim. - now the bishop of Uglich - Amphilochius and according to the phototypical 1892 by Metropolitan Leontius, l. 24, Col. 2, lines 13 St.; cf. Amphilochius in the “Four Gospels of 1144”, vol. I, Moscow 1882, p. 848; vol. IV, Moscow 1885, p. 138), which is confirmed by the Greek manuscripts. νεανίσϰοι (Tischendorf, N. T., ed. VIII, t. I, p. 382) We know absolutely nothing about these “young men” (cf. Acts 5:10), but in any case the apocryphal legend about how Judas conspired with the high priests is interesting: ? Αύτού είς τόπον έμηον έλϑω ϰαί ήγώμαι ύμάς. (Alfred R esc h. Agrapha ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente in “Texte und Untersachungen von O. Gebhardt und A. Harnack, Bnd. V, Hefi 4, Lpzg 1889, S. 405) It is also interesting that Malchus did not put up the slightest resistance, and this is hardly conceivable if he was armed. Finally, in the entire story of the capture of the Savior, the main character is exclusively Judas (Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; John 23:3; Luke 22:47), which allowed the Jewish leaders, in case of failure and complications, to shift all the blame onto the informer. You have to be naive enough to seriously think that the Sanhedrists did not foresee all the possibilities and did not prepare for themselves a decent outcome. See Josephi Flarii De bello judaico II: 17, 10; 19, 2. Opera onmia graece et latine. Ed S. Havercampi cum notis et nova versione S. Hudsoni, Amstelaedami, Lugd. Bat., Ultrajecti 1726, t II, p. 196. 202. Opera omnia, editio M. G Weidmanni cum prolegg. Th. I*tigii, Coloniae 1691, p. 813, 818. Sanhedrin X, 4 in Surengusius IV, 258. Neue Beitrag, zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, Göttingen 1878, pp. 325–326. Pesik'a, t. 75 (see Ant. Bynaei De morte Jesu Christi, Amstelaedami 1691. Lib. I, cap. 2, p, 145 sqq.) even directly states that the execution of rebels or seducers is postponed until the holiday, and then see Luke 23: 2,5; John 13:30, 19:12. Christian Reading, 1875, II, 487-488. Passamahl, S. 124–125. It is worthy of note that Joseph came to Pilate with a request (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:42; cf. Luke 23:54), “when the evening had already come” (ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης) of Friday. “De monte” (from the translation of Erizzo, f. 378) of the Jerusalem lectionary for Mark and “from the village” (from the translation of Fr. Baethgen: Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des Cureton’schen Syrers, Lpzg. 1885, p. 88: απ αγρου) of Cureton’s the fragments for Luke, of course, do not prove anything. In 1875 prof. Khvolson wrote (“Chronicles”, 1875, II, 461, note 1) that “the translation published by Cureton is probably older than Pescito,” but now one should rather think the other way around, because the authority of the first has already been significantly shaken (cf. the note about the Oxford Studia biblica in “Revue biblique”, 1893, I, p. 151–153). However, the final judgment must be postponed until the publication of one Codex Sinaiticus, which is reported by E. Nestle and E. Schurer in Theologische Littraturzeitung (1893, 8, 220; 9, 244) and Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis in The Academy (April 15, 1893, No. 1093 P 326 b). In support of this idea, they also note that on the night from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan it was forbidden to leave the house, but this is not entirely true (cf. Pölzl, S. 48, 160, and Kreschnička, S. 31–32), and then the said rule could hardly limit the Lord of the Sabbath, when the law itself came to its final end. See Delitzsch's article Der Passaritus des zweiten Tempels in Zeitschrift fur lutherische Theologie, 1855, pp. 257–268. F. Nork, Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamenthchen Schnftstellen, Lpzg. 1839, S. CXXXXVIII – CXLII. The Lord's Supper and the Passover Ritual; being a translation of the substance of professor Biekell`s Work termed “Messe und Pascha” (‑ Mainz 1872 ‑) by W. F. Skene with an introduction, Edinburgh 1891. The Lord’s Supper by I . P. Lilley, Edinburgh 1891. Although both last works have their own special purposes, they (especially the first, which is very good in its own way: cf. also in “Zeitschr. fur Lath. Theologie”, Innsbruck 1880, p. 90; “Dublin Review”, 1889, II, p. 350) contain enough information on our subject. I must admit that I say this solely based on the testimony of Prof. Khvolson and Wiener (Biblische`s Real Worte Buch von G.W.Winer Bnd. II, Lpzg. 1848, S. 205), since he could not get Derenburg’s article published in the Amsterdam magazine “Orientalia” (1840, I, 175 sqq.) And Josephus Flavius appoints the time for the offering of Easter sacrifices from 10 to 11 (De bello jud. VI, 9. 3 and Ha v ercamp. II 399; in Weidm ann., p. 968 F) or - in our opinion - from 4 to 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Surenhusius, II, 155. Schmidt, Tractatus de Paschate, p. 204. Prof. is against this. Schürer refers (“Theol. Literaturzeitung”, 1893, 7, 182) to Matthew 12:5; John 7:22-23, but hardly fair. In the first place we are talking about ordinary sacrifices, which were never considered by anyone to violate the Sabbath (Num. 28:9-10, etc.), and in the second it is directly stated that circumcision was performed on this day, so that the law of Moses would not be ruined. This means that a collision here was unthinkable. Why needlessly confuse the matter when everyone already knows that not a single hypothesis avoids all objections and eliminates perplexities? Otherwise there would already be an axiom. Let us note, however, that on this rule it is in no way possible to substantiate the idea of ​​postponing the Easter holiday, because its effect in the time of the Savior has not been proven, and, under his rule, the conflict itself would have been unthinkable. Prof. also refers to it. A. A. Nekrasov, who writes (“Reading the Holy Gospels,” pp. 140–141; cf. his brochure: “The Year of the Passion on the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Week of the Prophet Daniel,” Kazan 1892, pp. 19, 20): “We had to read that Jews do not start the New Year not only on Friday, but also on Wednesday. It is quite difficult to verify this (!). But we know that over the past, at least 19 years, the new year has never begun for them either on Wednesday or Friday.” This discovery is partly true, but the most unfortunate thing is that the author spent so much time completely in vain. And the reason for this is simple, for the elementary provision of the rabbinical calendar states: “there is no beginning of the year ADU (אדו, i.e. on the 1st, 4th and 6th days of the week, or on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday) and Passover BaDU (בדו, i.e., on the 2nd, 4th and 6th days, or on Monday, Wednesday and Friday).” And the motives for this, of course, are not those that Mr. Nekrasov worked hard to invent. In the interests of public accessibility, I will refer to the book by Joseph Lurie “Mathematical Theory of the Jewish Calendar” (Mogilev on the Dnieper 1887, pp. 28–29. 43); it is all the more important for us because the author used the solid research on this subject by the Zhitomir rabbi X. Z. Slonimsky “Yesode-goibbur” (Warsaw 1852 and Zhitomir 1884). Wed. in "Judiche Zaitschrift fur Wissenschaft und Leben", heransg, v. A. Geiger, XI (1873–1874), 1–2, S. 122–128. "Xp. Thu." 1877. II, 596–597. Prof.'s language Khvolson’s opinion on this matter is not clear and stable. Then he says that on the 13th of Scripture Christ ate the lamb with “some (“Chronicles” 1877, 1, 825), many (“Chronicles.” 1875, II, 474, 475; 1877, II, 574. Passamahl, S. 74), others” (“Chronicles” 1877, II, 600); this suggests that “most of the Jews” ate it on the 14th - Friday (“Chronicles” 1877, II, 599). "Theologische Literaturzeitung", 1893, 7, 182. This expression is especially harsh when compared with the opinion of Prof. himself. Khvolson about his hypothesis, like a firmly built house” (“Chronicle Reading” 1878, I, 416). Prof. Fr. Delitzsch in his Hebrew translation of the New Testament (1885) uses here (p. 52) וַיפְשו (from וָגַש) but in Lk. 12:1 uses וַױׅפַב (p. 153). However, it is difficult to agree with the thought of this scientist (“Saat auf Hoffnung” 1874, 195–210) that Christ spoke (and Matthew wrote: R. Schegg, Evangelium nach Matthäus, I, Mundien 1863, 8. 13 fig.) in biblical language (cf. T. K. Abbott, Essays, p. 161–162). Fr. B a e th gen, Evangelienfragmente, S. 85. I will note for those interested that in the Ethiopian translation (according to the publication of Th. R. Platt, Londinii 1830) - according to the testimony of a student at the St. Petersburg Academy, Fr. Christodoulo – Matthew 26:17 reads: On the first day of Easter.” However, it should be noted that the translator identifies the last term with τά άζυμα and therefore Mark 14:12 is translated as follows: “On the first day of unleavened bread, on the Passover, when they killed the Passover. Khvolson understands the words of Papias in the sense of indicating various translations, but 1) where are the traces of them and 2) why did not a single discrepancy survive in Matthew 26:17? I think this interpretation is not in his favor. Passamahl, S. 12. “Chron. Thu." 1875, II, 463; 1877, 1, 863. Cp. J. W. Burgon, The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established, Oxford and London 1871. His The Revision, second edition (London 1885), p. 36–40, 47–49, 51, 281–284, 311, 422–424. Scrivener, A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament, Cambrige 1883, p. 583 suiv. In this sense, it is a very characteristic coincidence that the latest attempts of the Dutch school to cross out the four great Pauline epistles, spared by the ruthless Tübingen, are becoming increasingly widespread and powerful in the West, and at the same time, shots are being fired from England against the authenticity of “all” the works of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. See the response to the late famous patrolologist and sober exegete Lightfoot W. D. To ill e n`a “The Ignatian Epistles entirely spurio s”, T. and T. Clark. Truly: men loved darkness rather than light (John 2:19)!.. Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus von Ad. Harnack in "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur", IX, 2, Lpzg. 1893, S. 9. 24–25. Regardless of this, Paul Ewald (Has Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und Weg zu seiner Lösung, Lpzg. 1890, pp. 54–56) affirms the unity of the tradition of Luke and John in the news of the Easter supper. Let us note that the Easter disputes prove absolutely nothing about how John’s testimony about the Supper of Christ should be understood and how it was understood in ancient times. See the late prof. E. Abbot in the collection: “The fourth Gospel. Evidences external and internal of its Iohannean authorship, Essays by Ezra Abbot, Andrew P. Peabody and Bishop Lightfoot." New York 1891. P. 6–7. Passamahl, S. 12. “Christ. Thu." 1875, II, 463, etc. Wed. to approx. 26–35 on pp. 13–17. It is in vain that some exegetes conclude that this must have happened in the morning, since the Jews went for water at that time (cf. Pölzl, op. cit., S. 35). Firstly, such a statement is not at all true, since the Jews (not to mention the Samaritan woman) stored water in the evening, and secondly, it does not follow from anywhere that we should think only of one of these periods of the day. Rather, on the contrary: with the mass of water-carriers, it would have been difficult for the Apostles to guess the intended person, and Christ probably gave an exact sign why the disciples could not mix him up with others carrying jugs. In any case, the matter here is highly controversial. Cp. Reseh's "Agrapha" (in "Texte und Untersuchungen", V, 4, S. 405), although it says that the Jews deliberately moved the holiday three days earlier - to the 11th of Nisan. Iosephi Vita, § 2. See Flavii Iosephi opera edit Ben. Niese. Yol. IV (Berolini 1890), p. 322. Ed. V. Niese, vol. I, p. 150. Passamahl, S. 3 Anm. 2. “Chr. Read,” 1875, II, 452; 1877, I, 851. "Theol. Literaturzeitung" 1893, 7, 182 with reference to Olitzki. Flavius ​​Iosephus und die Halacha, T, S. 53 fig. Ed. Havercampi, II, 148. Ed. Weidmanni, b. 776. Ed. Niese, II (Berolini 1885), 323. Passamahl, S. 3 Anm. 2. “Chr. Thu." 1875, II, 450 approx. 1 and 2. 452: 1877, I, 850 – 851; 1878, I, 355 – 356. And Numbers 28:16,17 (cf. 23:3, etc.) distinguishes the 14th Nisan - the day of the “Passover of the Lord” - from the 15th - the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread. Antiqu. III, 10: 5 – τεσσαρεσϰαιδεϰάτη… τήν ϑυσίαν… πάσχα λεγομένην… Πέμπτη ϰαί δεϰάτη… ή τών άζύμων έορτή… Τή δέ ευτέρα τών άζύμων ήμέρα, έϰτη στίν αΰτη ϰαί δεϰάτη, τών ϰερπών… μεταλαμβάνουσι ϰ. τ. λ. (Ed. Niese, I, 207–208). The distinction here is obviously caused by the fact that in the seven-day festival itself the author wants to indicate especially solemn days - the 15th of Nisan, on which the most important hagigi were brought (καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ταῦροι σφάζονιαι) and - on the 16th, when the first fruits were presented to God. Let us not forget that Joseph also accurately names the numbers, and this would hardly have been necessary if there had been no possible misunderstanding regarding the position of the first and second Easter days. Antiqu. IX, 13: 3 in Niese, II, 323. Antiqu. XIV, 2: 2 in Niese IIІ (Berolini 1892), 243–244: φάσϰα, and according to IX, 13: 3 ή λεγομένη φάσϰα = ένστάσης τής τών άζύμων έορτής (cp. IX, 13, 2 in Niese, II, 321, 322). XVII, 9: 3 in Niese, IV, 110: πατριον φάσϰα δ΄ ή έορτή ϰαλείται. De bello jud. II, 1:3 at Havercamp. II, 148; at Weidmann. 776B: ϰαί δή τής τών άζύμων ένστάσης έορτής, φάσχα παρά τοίς Ίουδαίοις. VI, 9: 3 at Havereamp. II, 398, 399; at Weidmann. 968 E-F: τών τών άζύμων έορτήν… ένστάσης έορτής, πάσχα ϰαλείται. It should also be noted that, speaking about Easter, Josephus mentions only the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Antiqu. IX, 13: 2 (twice) in Niese, II, 321 – 322. De bello jud. IV. 7:2 at Havercamp. II, 294; at Weidmann. 887 F-G. De bello jud. V, 3:1 at Havercamp. II, 324; at Weidmann. 910 C-D. Cp. Antiqu. XI, 4: 8 in Niese III, 25 έορτήν ήγαγον, ϰαί σαί πάσχα προσαγορευομένην ϑυσίαν τή τετράδι ϰαί δεϰάτη τού αύτού μηνός έπιτελέσαντες ϰατευωχήησαν έπί ήμέρας έπτά. It seems clear here too! Wed. “Chr. Read,” 1877, II, 599. For example, regarding which cup served to establish the sacrament of the blood of Christ, some (Lightfoot, Shep, Schantz, Laurent, Skene, Lilley, Pölzl) understand the third “cup of blessing”, others (Bickell Cornely) - the fourth, and some (cf. Langen) - even the fifth, used after supper and not completely and not for everyone mandatory. Wed. also “Chr. Thu." 1878, I, 379. Passamahl, S. 45 fig. Othonis Lexicon rabbinico – philologicum, p. 454: Notandum hiс etiam totum festum Paschatis septiduum aliquando translatum fuisse in alium mensem, non tantum ex villa lege quae extat Num. IX. sed ex causis etiam aliis de quibus Hierosol. in Maaser Scheni fol. 56. 3 Maymon. in Kiddush. Chodesch cap. 4". After all, following in the footsteps of D. A. Khvolson, Kazan prof. A. A Nekrasov (see in “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1878, II, pp. 113–132) offered his proofreading έορτής τών άζύμων), although now he wisely took his word back (“Readings of the Holy Gospels, pp. 139–110). See "Texte und Untersuchungen", VII, 2, Lpzg. 1891, pp. 115–144, and Harnack's reply to Zahn in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1892, 15, pp. 373–378. See "Theologische Abhandlungen", pp. ѵ. Weizsäcker gewidmet, Freiburg and. V. 1892, S. 217–250. Wed. “Chr. Thu." 1875, II, 480–488. 1877, II, 605–610. 587. The tone of Prof.’s argument is somewhat closer to the German presentation. Ivolson in his essay “On some medieval accusations against Jews”, St. Petersburg. 1880, p. 12 ff. Here the limitation is no longer made that Christ differed from the Pharisees in the “dogma of the Trinity” (“Chronicles” 1875, II, 484. 1877, II, 605). I remember on this occasion that Boccaccio forced Christ to speak (Acts 9:5. 26:14) even in the words of Terence (Durum est tibi contra stimulum calcitrare). Wed. at Prof. A. N. Veselovsky in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, 1891, No. 4, p. 283 Similarly, Derenbourg (Essai, p. 129 not 2) states that rabbinic sources do not confirm the news of Acts 23:8, that the Sadducees did not believe in either an angel or a spirit. In passing, but a shadow was thrown and completely in vain. Thus, Geiger insists on the non-authenticity of οἱ φαρισαῖοι in Matthew 21:45 (Urschrift, S. 107 Anm.). And prof. Khvolson must agree with him. We don’t know how many there were, but reading the harsh anti-Pharisee testimonies of rabbinical literature (cp. Geiger, Urschrift, S. 110) leaves an extremely unfavorable impression about the majority of members of this party. See Chwolson, Passamahl, S. 114: Wenn er – Christus – dann ihre (der Pharisaer) Werke tadelt, kann er somit doch nur die Mancher oder selbst Vieler unter ihnen , aber doch unmöglich aller Pharisäer, gemeint haben. Now the question is: how much will remain of “all” after excluding “even many” from them? "Theologische Literaturzeitung", 1893, 7, S. 183, Z. 22–26 ѵ. oben. "Judische Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft und Leben", 1874–75, III and IV, pp. 299–308. "Judische Zeitschrift", 1863, S. 35–38. Cp. an even “better” passage from Geiger in Farrar J. I. Xp., p. 472: but we deliberately quote Geiger’s work “(Die) Sadducaer und Pharoisaer”, because - according to D. A. Khvolson (“Eighteen Jewish gravestone inscriptions from the Crimea”, St. Petersburg 1866, p. 170) - this “is the luminary of scientific research.” Geiger, "Jüdische Zeitschrift", 1863, S. 41. Essai, p. 468–471; but cp. H. Laible (who – in the appendix – reprinted the very texts published by G. N. Dalman in the pamphlet: Was sagt der Talmud über Iesum? Berlin 1891, No. 11 “Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin”), Jesus Christus im Thalmud (“Sehr. Inst. Jud” No. 10), Berlin 1891, S. 9–13. J. B. Pranaitis, Christus in Talmude Judaeorum, sive rabbinicae doctrinae de Christianis Secreta, Petropoli 1892, p. 31 sqq. Regarding the last work of Mr. A. Alekseev, it is completely in vain to assert (The Wanderer, 1893, No. 5, p. 107) that the author was borrowed from his essays on “the religious and social life of modern Jews” (The Wanderer, 1881, No.-pa 6–9). It's actually impossible... Essai sur l`histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, d' apres les Ttialmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. Part. 1. Paris 1867. P. 202–203, 352. See, for example, Geiger’s interesting article “Entstehung des Christenthums” (in “Jüdische Zeitschrift” 1873-74, I-II, S. 8-18), where the epochenmachendes Werk is already a book by Strauss, whom Mr. Khvolson himself calls “a great scientist” and “one of the famous men” (Passamahl, S. 70 – 71). Also interesting is the essay “Geschichte des Rabbi Iescbua ben Iossef Hanootzri, genannt Iesus Christus” Zw. Aufl., Hamburg u. Altona 1858-1861, IV Bnde), built on the principle that “only with the help of the Talmud and other works of ancient rabbinic literature is it possible to accurately explain, reveal, complete and correct the New Testament books” (I Bnd., S. 39-40). "Theologische Riteraturzcitiuig", 1893, 8, 8. 220. Wed. Passamahl, S. 54 “Chron. Thu." 1875, II, 475. 1877, I, 826; II, 597–598, 603–604. Please compare how Geiger judges the Gospel of John in Urschrift, S. 107 Anm. Wed. I B. Lig h foo t `a, in the aforementioned collection “The Fourth Gospel” (and in the London Expositor magazine for 1890), p. 154 suiv. See Acts 4:1,5-6,15; 5:17,27-28,34; 23:6. Wed. Derenbourg, Essai r. 121. Ed. Niese IV, 142–143. This evidence is fully accepted by Jewish scholars. See Derenbourg, Essai, p. 122–123. Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, Breslau 1857, S. 108 u. Anm. Cp. Another very characteristic testimony in Antiqu. XIII, 10: 5 (“the Pharisees had such power among the people that they were immediately believed if they said anything even against the king and the high priest”). 6 (for hostility to the Pharisees the people hated Hyrcanus and his children) in Niese III, 201–206. Passamahl, S. 88: “Von seiner Massianität hat Christus offenbar in Keinen seiner öffentlichen Reden gesprochen, und wenn er dies auch gethan hätte, so hätten die Pharisäer darin kein Todesverbrochen finden können.” Therefore, I cannot agree with that opinion of Prof. Khvolson (“Chronicles” 1875, II, 464, etc.), as if through Geiger’s research we are able to understand much in the Gospels better, although – in necessary cases – I “use the readiness and help of those who have the key to... the living source hidden in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds and in numerous ancient and new midrashim.” (“Eighteen Jewish gravestone inscriptions from Crimea. Work by D. A. Khvolson.” St. Petersburg, 1866, pp. 16-4). Wed. Chwolson, Passamahl, S. 91 Anm. 2. פְךְאֶנוש (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου), as in Ps. 144:3, פֶךאָדָם (υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου) as in Ezek. 2: 3 and others are inarticulate. In the LXX, only υίος του ἀνθρώπου is found: see A concordance to the Septuagint by the late Edw. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, part I (Oxford 1892), p. 966, True, in this concordance (p. 101 c) it is noted that in the “prayer of Azariah and the hymn of the three” youths (v. 59, and Dan. 3:82) there is οἱ υἱοὶ τὡν ἀνθρώπων, but Tischendorf (V. T., II, 490) and Loch (b. 869) read simply υἰοί. It is characteristic, in any case, that the Greek translation concentrates all the power of expression on the word “man” and seems to say that every “son” is certainly like the father, for it comes precisely from him. Not so energetic: Mark 2:19 ), υἱοὶ βροντῆς ( Mark 3:17 ), οἰ υἱοὶ του φωτός ( Luke 16:8 ; John 12:36 ; 1 Sol. 5:5 ), τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ (Luke 20:36). V. N. Stanton, The Jewish und Christian Messiah: A study in the earliest history of Christianity. Edinburgh 1886. pp. 240–242. On the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, see Geiger in Jüdische Zeitchrift 1863, pp. 19–31. Derenbourg Essai, p. 119. 122 suiv. Das Leiden des Messias, Lpzg. 1870 Fr. Nork, Rabbinische Quellen, S. C. Ho cp. G. N. Dalman, Der leidende und sterbende Messias, des Synagoge im eistem nachristheben Jahrtausend, Berlin 1988. Ego Was sagt der Talmud über Iesum, Berlin 1891 (Schr. Jnst. Jud. No. 4), S. 16 flg. Ferd. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud: System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Thoobgie, Lpzg. 1880 (Schr. Inst Jud. II. Serie. No. l), S. 344–347. See Stanton and The Jevish and Christian Messiah, p. 122 cl. 102. 294–297, 153, 286–287 and many others. etc. Br. F. Westcott, An introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Loudon 1888, chap. II, p. 92 cl. In the first essay on strnn. XI-XII and the corresponding literature are indicated. Ed. Havercamp. II, 177, 178. Weidmann., p. 797 A-B. Ed. Niese IV, 304–305. Cp. Acts 21:38 Ed. Havercamp II, 177. Weidmann., p. 796 G. Ed. Havercamp. II, 390. Weidmann., p. 961 F-G: τῖς αὐτῶν ἀρξει τῆς οἰκουμένης. Passaimahl, S. 88 Anm. 1. And Ap. Paul testified that “for the hope of Israel he was bound with chains” (Acts 23:20). It is also very possible that the political accusation was invented so that Christ would be executed in the Roman pagan way and through this would be subjected to greater accusations and the worst anathema (Deut. 21:22-23; cf. Gal.3:13). This follows from the fact that everyone immediately and persistently demands crucifixion, although nothing forced this, and Stephen was stoned. I believe that this is exactly how you need to think. iOS. Flavii De bello Judaico II, 8:14 y Havercamp. II, 165. 166; for Weidmann 788 E: νоμιμα. Vita, § 38 (ed. Niese IV, 353): ἀκριβειᾳ διαφέρειν. Wed. Derenbourg, Essai, r. 133, 135 Chwolson, Passamahl, S. 62, 63. “Chron. Thu." 1877, II, 606. 1875. II, 484 approx. On medieval accusations, p. 30. Cp opinion of Carl Weizsacker (Das apostolische Zeitalter der chrichen Kirche, Zw. Auf. Freiburg i. B. 1892, S. 23): “Wir müssten unsere ganze beste evangelische Ueberlieferung aufgeben, wenn wir vergessen wollten, dass Sie (d. i. die Pharisäer) die eigentliche Gegner Jesus und Seiner Sache gewesen waren.” See also pages 50 and 59. This is what Derenbourg argues, Essai, p. 202–204. How big the crowd was is completely idle to guess. There is no doubt, however, that, according to the Evangelists, it was “the whole people” (Matthew 27:25; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:18; cf. John 19:13,15) and there was great “confusion” (Matthew 27:24). We know even less about bribery. It is only fair that the high priests excited (ἀνέσεισαν Mark 15:11 and cf. Luke 23:5) the people, convincing them of the legality of the atrocity. Matthew 27:20 mentions ἔπεισαν τοὺς ὄχλους and this verb is used in a speech about how the Jewish leaders promised to convince (Matthew 28:14) Pilate of the opinion that the body of Christ was stolen by the disciples. It follows from this that the screaming crowd shared the views of the “traitors” on the personality of the Lord and was fundamentally guilty not only of corruption and meanness... Wed. his Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit um der ihrer Entwickelung de» Judenthums. Bresau 1857. S. 121 flg. 496 Anm. "Jüdische Zeitschrift". 1863. S. 24–25. Cp. Jacob. Levi, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim, Lpzg. 1876, I, S. 236 (to הבְרׇא) and Neuhebr. und Chald. W.= B., Zw. Bnd. (Lpzg. 1879), S. 8–9 to חַבֵר). See Surengusius IV, 40. Cp. Levy, Chald. W = B I, S. 236 to the word חַבְרׇא numbered 1. Wed. the testimony of Josephus (De bello Judaico II, 8:14) that the Pharisees love and help each other, and the Sadducees are fierce even among themselves: τὴν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν ὁμόνοιαν ἀσκοῦντες, Σαδδουκαίων δὲ καὶ ? ὁμοίους ἀπηνεῖς ὡς πρὸς ἀλλοτρίους (ν Havercamp . II, 166; in Weidmann ., p. 788 G-789 A). In comparison with them, the historian says of the Essenes (De bello jud. II. 8: 2) that they are φιλάλληλοί δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων (Pharisees and Sadducees) πλέον (ed. Havercamp. II, 161; Weidmann., p. 785 A). That our logical conclusion is actually correct - I refer to Abboth or Pirke Abboth, where savory is mentioned in almost every paragraph. In I, 12 (in Sureugusius IV. 416) Hillel commands: אְת־הַבְּרִיּוֺת איֹהֵב. Here we are, of course, talking about love for people, but it is remarkable that they are indicated by the word בִּרְיׇה (as in R. Menra in VI, 1 in Sureugusius IV, 484), which actually means everything created, creation. Wed. and Jacob. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, I Вnd (Lpzg. 1876), S, 265 b. Passamahl, S. 75: “Das Stieben einen Gegensatz da zu finden, wo es keinen giebt, macht die hellsten und freisinnigsten Theologen blind.” As is known, the Talmud avoids the name “Jesus” and calls the Lord “that man” or “someone.” And this began from the time of the apostles: cf. Acts 4:7,17, 5:28, 9:21. It is clear that the origin of this term from fear of the Christian government (Passamahl, S. 101) should not be discussed. Passamahl, S. 90. Anm. 2 (zu S. 95). VI-VII al. “On medieval accusations”, pp. 25, 33–31, etc. You might be interested in: