« PreviousContinue »
marched from Rameses “ between the two evenings," or after three o'clock in the afternoon of the fifteenth of Nisan ; the very “ seuson” at which, on the day before, they were ordered to sacrifice the paschal lamb; and that they reached Succoth some time after sunset, in the course of the night.
II. It is now to be shown, what countenance this deduction receives from accounts of, and allusions to, the transaction, to be found in scripture.
1. Negatively. There is no passage in scripture, in which the morning is said to be the time of their departure. Under this head, too, may be classed the arguments derivable from the embarrassment under which commentators of acknowleged eminence are evidently placed, when (under the supposition of the morning being the time of the departure) they attempt to reconcile the apparently opposite declarations of scripture, that they were brought out “ by day and by night.” This embarrassment will be pointed out in notes, as we consider the several texts descriptive of the time of the going out of Egypt.
2. The first passage, tending to prove that they went out of Egypt in the afternoon, is written in the 41st and 42nd verses of Exod. xii.
Even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord, for bringing them out from the land of Egypt.
So they marched out that day. But further we read, it is a night to be observed. What night? why, the night of that day, the 15th. The night in which they were brought ." out of the land of Egypt.” This was not the night of the fourteenth, for in that night they were not to stir out of their doors till the morning. But it was the night of the fifteenth, the nigbt of their arrival at Succoth, the balting place of tlieir FIRST MARCH out of the land of their captivity.
The solution is easy and natural, if we suppose the Israelites to have set out" between the two evenings," and to have arrived at Succoth at night. Then we can comprehend with ease, and reconcile without violence to the simple and obvious sense of the historian's words, the two circumstances of their marching out of Egypt“ in the body and strength of the day," and yet observing the night unto the Lord for bringing them out, &c.
3. Another passage is Numbers xxxiii. 3. 6. On the morrow after the Passover, the children of Israel went out with an high hand IN THE SIGht of the Egyptians.” They went out with an" high hand;" they would hardly (however urgent the Egyp
tians might have been) have broken the command of their God, and have quitted their houses before morning. And accordingly, they went out in the sight of the Egyptians. They assembled themselves and their flocks and herds in broad day-light; and as soon as all was ready, (which I have endeavoured to show scarcely could be the case till the afternoon,) they set out.
4. Compare this passage with Deut. xvi. 1. where it is expressly declared, “ the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.'
In this comparison the following points may be noticed. In Numb. xxxiii. it is said, they departed from Rameses on the fifteenth, on the morrow after the Passover, and in the sight of all the Egyptians. This agrees in all respects with the statement (Exod. xii. 22.), that not a man was to stir out of his doors till the morning. Therefore, hitherto, there was no going forth by night. They “ departed,” they set out, some time in broad day-light on the fifteenth. Their being brought forth out of Egypt could not refer to the time antecedent to their departure. Their departure was not at night. Consequently the phrase, “ by night," is fairly referable to some part of their march, subsequent to their departure. And what part of it more properly, than their ARRIVAL AT Succoth, the close of their march, the first stage of their journey out of Egypt?
5. But the passage which appears to speak most decidedly upon the point, and indeed, to mark distinctly and positively the time of their quitting Egypt, is Deut. xvi. 6. “At the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to put his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the Passover, at even, at the going down of the sun, AT THE SEASON THAT THOU CAMEST FORTH OUT OF EGYPT.”
This passage amounts to a clear deternination of the time of their setting out,-namely, “even," or between the two evenings; the time at which the sun was on the decline. The " evidently means the precise time of day, as may be proved from the words connected with it; for the two first expressions denote time of day, and they are all obviously meant to specify the same time, viz. the time for slaying the paschal lamb. Thus, the time of day for slaying the paschal lamb, the evening, the time of the going down of the sun, and
the time of their coming forth out of Egypt, were the same. . Consequently, we have an express authority of Scripture that the Israelites left Egypt, not on the day, but at the hour, when the Passover was slain. And this has been shown to be the hour which best agrees with all the circumstances of the transaction, and which affords a simple
and natural method of reconciling those expressions, in which the going out of the Israelites is said to have taken place, in some passages by day, and in others by night.”
Now if these reasonings be correct, a beautiful and wonderfully circumstantial conformity between one of the chief paschal types, and its antitype, is exhibited. In the perfection and closeness of their correspondence, they stand, perhaps, unrivalled ; and present to us a most striking evidence of the divine origin of the law, and of the identity of Jesus as the true paschal lamb, prefigured in it.
Another consequence is, that the discovery sweeps away the groundwork' of the celebrated controversy respecting the day, in which our Lord partook of the Last Passover.
“For it was not only not essential, but not conformable to the accurate fulfilment of the paschal types, that our Lord should have celebrated the last Passover before the national day. It is in the highest degree improbable, and at variance with the general tenor of his character and conduct, that he should do so. There is direct evidence (Matt. xxvi. 17. Mark, xiv. 12. Luke, xxii. 7.) that He did not do so. An explanation can be given of those phrases which might seem to imply the anticipation of the national day. Therefore, as long as the first covenant was in force, He set an example of obedience, in all things lawful, both to its ordinances and to its ecclesiastical authorities. He annulled nothing, He resisted nothing, He removed nothing of the law, till its destined purpose had been effected, and the fulness of time had come. The paschal supper was not abrogated till the last anniversary of it had been duly observed. The adjuration of the High Priest was not despised, till our High
I cannot but think, that an inaccurate view of the paschal types and a pious desire to reconcile a seeming discrepancy, predisposed the many learned men, who have maintained the anticipation of the national day for celebrating the Passover, to admit and support the arguments for an act so anomalous, and so uncongenial with the principles upon which our Saviour generally appears to have modelled his conduct. The statements in Matt. xxvi. 17. Mark, xiv. 12. and Luke, xxii. 7. are so plaia, and decisive, that no effort is necessary to understand their purport; but considerable ingenuity has been reqnired to raise a doubt upon them. The difficulty, too, and the differences of opinion among critics, in attempting to account for the anticipation, is remarkable. The reader may see them briefly stated in Jennings' Jewish Antiquities, p. 455. In the second part of the Appendix to my Sermon on the Passover, I have endeavoured to show, and I trust nut unsuccessfully, that there are insuperable objections to the scheme of the Anticipation, and clear evidence on the other side.
Priest had offered the one great and all-sufficient sacrifice. The vail of the temple was not “ rent in twain,” till Jesus had given up the ghost, and the eternal mercy-seat had been “opened to all believers." His conduct, to the last, was in unison with His solemn declaration ; Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one titile shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
J. E. N. MOLESWORTH. Southampton, May, 1824.
De Verbo 'Axtalyw vel ’Axtawów, scr. E. H. BARKER.
[Vide Misc. Cr. V. II. P. 1. p. 53.] Insunt Emendationes Suida, Etymologicorum, Hesychii,
Æschyli, Platonis, et Orphei.
EscΗ. Εum. 36. Ως μήτε σωκεϊν μήτε μ' ακταίνειν βάσιν, ubi notavit G. Burges. :-" Phot. Ewxeīvo årti toũ loxúelv. Estat iterum owxã in Soph. El. 117., neque pluries ap. Tragicos. Inter” [τα] « άπαξ λεγόμενα recenseri debet et ακταίνειν. Ρhrynich. Arab. 23: 'Ακταινώσαι» σημαίνει μεν το υψώσαι και επάραι και μετεωρίσαι. Αισχύλος, Ουκ έτ' ακταίνω, φησί, βαρυτόνως, οίον ουκ έτ' ορθούν δύναμαι εμαυτήν,” [έμαυτόν, D. R. ad Timei Lex. 20.] « Πλάτων εν τω Φαίδωνι ως από περισπωμένου. Corrige εν
] TẠ Dawn: v. Kidd. in Critical Review Jan. 1803. p. 142."1 D. Tę v
Locus est hic:-“ Suid. v. 'Optuyoxónos: Aysu oùy éY 'Arxißrádn (Plato 2, 120. HSt.) Oix-årnà após Mudiar os deï Tóv óptuyonómov, (see Schol. Plat. 74.) αποβλέπεις και άλλους τοιούτους: έν Φαίδωνι, “Οτι ου προς τους τυχόντας αγών έστι, Tipos de tous åpiotous. What says Kuster to iv Qaidwri? • Pessime;' and well he might-ihe disease is admitted, where is the remedy? Alas, Sæpe evenit iis, qui artem nostram esercent, ut, dum astra speculantur, ea, quæ ante pedes sunt, non videant. If K. had submitted to the drudgery of reading a few lines of Leopardus Emendd. 2,5. he would not have permitted the illusive iv Paídwyı to remain unaltered, and his significare nimirum vult, would have been countenanced at least by a Greek word:- Hæc Platonis verba Proclus aut Plotinus aut alius quisquam interpretans, inquit, EMO AI. ΝΩΝ, ότι ου προς τους τυχόντας αγών έστι, i. e. Significans non esse Alcibiadi certamen cum vulgo aut aliquo e plebe. Neque enim ex Phædone Platonis sequentia verba deprompta esse credendum est. Daídwrı is, as we shall have
R. ad Timæi Lex. I. c. "In Phadone cum huic glossæ non satis aptum locum reperirem, oborta mihi suspicio est, Phryn. εν τω Φαίδρω scripsisse, propterea quod in illo Dialogo plura, quam in ullo alio, πεποιημένα και ξένα και αρχαιοπρεπή, que in Platone reprehendit Dionys. H. Ep. ad Pomp. 127., reperiuntur. Sed ne hic quidem verbi sedem ita demonstrare licet, nihil ut dubitationis supersit. Et erunt fortasse, qui Phryn. memoriæ lapsu Phædonem pro libris de LL. 2. p. 583. laudasse dicant: 'Εν τω χρόνω μήπω κέκτηται την οικείαν φρόνησιν, πάν μαίνεται τε και βοά άτακτος και όταν ακταινώση εαυτό, τάχιστα ατάκτως αυ πηδά. Sic tres Codd. Par. Leid. et alius, quó HSt. usus est, item Stob. Ms. et Schol. Plat. ad h. 1. hanc lectionem produnt." Idem D. R. in priina Timæi Editione:-“ Hanc rarissimam vocem e Plat. expulit sciolorum imperitia, dicam, an audacia? Neque hujus rei testem dabo Timæum, cujus hac parte fides propter crebras interpolationes vacillat, sed alium locupletiorem, omnique majorem exceptione, Phryn. Arab. Προπαρ. Σοφ. Ms. aliquando, si Deus sierit, a nobis luce donandum. At enimvero liquide mihi videor posse affirmare, verbi axtaively nullum in Phædone vestigium reperiri, quin ne locum quidem, cui satis apte conveniat, nisi forte huc referre velis p. 398. Περί εκείνο πολύν χρόνον επτοημένη, και περί τον ορατόν τόπον πολλά αντιτείνασα, και πολλά παθούσα. Scripsit igitur Phryn., ni fallor, έν Φαίδρα, in quo Dialogo plura sunt, quam in quovis alio, πεποιημένα και ξένα και αρχαιοπρεπή, quibus Philosophum, quando se attollit, delectari notat Dionys. H. Ep. ad Pomp. 127. Neque in Phædro commodæ verbo sedes diu quærendæ sunt. Ecce enim p. 348. (=31. Ast.) "Ωστ' επί τα ισχία άμφω καθίσαι τω ίππω, τον μεν, εκόντα δια το μη αντιτείνειν τον δε υβριστής, μάλα άκοντα. Quid si hic olim Grammatici legerint, διά το μή ακταινείν ?” [Scholia tamen Hermeæ p. 168. lectioni vulgatæ favent, 'Ns les αντιτείνειν το άλογον.] « Ιbidem pergit Plato: Βιαζόμενος, χρεμετίζων, έλκων ηνάγκασεν αυ προσελθείν τους παιδικούς. Αη hic pro έλκων quondam scriptum fuit ακταίνων, vel, ut Phryn. jubet, ακταινών ! Vitii certe suspicionen movet Cod. Voss., quem in Bibl. Leidensi contuli, έλκων prorsus omittens. Sed viderint acutiores.” [Nihil varietatis notavit Gaisford. Lectt. Plat. e
occasion to observe, one of those infumes scopuli so dangerous to literary adventurers.” Photius v. 'Ορτυγοκόπος : Λέγει ούν έν 'Αλκιβιάδη, Ουκ-αλλά προς Μειδίαν δεί σε αποβλέποντα τον ορτυγοκόπον και τοιούτους άλλους έν Φαίδωνι, “Ότι ου προς τους τυχόντας ο αγών έστι, προς δε τους αρίστους· διόπερ ου ραθυμητέον. « Sed ibi εμφαίνων cum Leopardo leg. monet Porson. ad Suid.” Dobreus p. 782. Sed aliquid humani passus est V.D. mihique amicissimus; nam locum frustra quæsivi in Porsoni Appendice.