APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A. THE DAY OF THE CRUCIFIXION.

It can scarcely be doubted that if we had only the Fourth Gospel no question would have arisen as to the date of the Last Supper and of the Crucifixion. S. John's statements are as usual so clear and precise, and at the same time so entirely consistent, that obscurity arises only when attempts are made to force his plain language into harmony with the statements of the Synoptists which appear to contradict his as regards the day of the month. All four Gospels agree as to the day of the week.

S. John gives five distinct intimations of the date.

1. IIpò dè Tys ÉоρTĤs тоû Tâσxa (xiii. 1); which shews that the feetwashing and discourses at the Last Supper preceded the Passover.

2. Αγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν (xiii. 29); which shews that the Last Supper was not the Passover.

3. Ἦν δὲ πρωΐ· καὶ οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα (xviii. 28); which proves that early on the day of the Crucifixion the Jews who delivered the Lord to Pilate had not yet eaten the Passover.

4. Ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη (xix. 14); which shews that these Jews had not postponed eating the Passover because of urgent business: the Passover had not yet begun.

5. Οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἐπεὶ παρασκευὴ ἦν ἵνα μὴ μείνῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ σώματα ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ, ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου, K.T.λ. (xix. 31). Here TараoкevỶ may mean either Friday, the preparation for the Sabbath, or Nisan 14, the preparation for the Passover. The statement that that Sabbath was a μeyáλn ǹuépa most naturally means that the Sabbath in that week coincided with the first day of the Feast: so that the day of the Crucifixion was 'the Preparation' for both the Sabbath and the Feast.

It is evident, therefore, that S. John places the Crucifixion on the Preparation or Eve of the Passover, i.e. on Nisan 14, on the afternoon of which the Paschal Lamb was slain; and that he makes the Passover begin at sunset that same day. Consequently the Last Supper cannot have been the Paschal meal.

It is from the Synoptists that we inevitably derive the impression that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal (Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18, 19;

Mark xiv. 14-16; Luke xxii. 7, 11, 13, 15). Whatever method of explanation be adopted, it is the impression derived from the Synoptists that must be modified, not that derived from S. John. Their statements refer rather to the nature of the Last Supper, his cover the whole field from the Supper to the taking down from the cross, giving clear marks of time all along. No doubt they are correct in stating that the Last Supper had in some sense the character of a Paschal meal; but it is quite evident from S. John that the Last Supper was not the Passover in the ordinary Jewish sense. And this conclusion is confirmed:

1. By the Synoptists themselves. They state that the priests and their officials went to arrest Jesus immediately after the Last Supper (Luke xxii. 52). Would this have been possible while the whole nation was at the Paschal meal? Could Simon have been coming out of the country (Mark xv. 21) on such a Sabbatical day as Nisan 15? Could Joseph have bought a winding-sheet (xv. 46) on such a day? Would the women have postponed the full embalming of the body on account of the Sabbath (Luke xxiii. 56), if the day of the entombment was already a Sabbatical day? Moreover it was on the evening between Nisan 13 and 14 that people went to draw water with which to make the unleavened bread for the Feast. Might not the "man bearing a pitcher of water" (Mark xiv. 13), who provided the large upper-room for the Last Supper, be bringing water for this purpose? Comp. 'O καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστιν· πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα (Matt. xxvi. 18). What logical connexion have these two sentences, if they do not mean that Jesus was obliged to keep the Passover before the time?

2. By S. Paul. In speaking of the Resurrection he says dπaρxn Xplorós (1 Cor. xv. 23). The sheaf which was the ȧrapxý or firstfruits of the harvest was gathered on Nisan 16. If Jesus died on Nisan 14, His Resurrection exactly corresponded with this ȧrapx.

3. By Christian tradition. Clement of Alexandria says expressly that the Last Supper took place Nisan 13, and that "our Saviour suffered on the following day; for He was Himself the true Passover." And the fact that the whole Church for eight centuries always used leavened bread at the Eucharist, and that the Eastern Church continues to do so to this day, points to a tradition that the meal at which the Eucharist was instituted was not the Paschal meal.

4. By Jewish tradition. The execution of Jesus is noticed in two passages in the Talmud. In the one He is said to have been hung, in the other to have been stoned: but both agree in placing the execution on the eve of the Passover.

Jews, to whom the Gospel was to be preached first, might have found a serious stumbling-block in the fact that He who was proclaimed as the Paschal Lamb partook of the Paschal Feast and was slain afterwards. Whereas S. John makes it clear to them, that on the very day and at the very hour when the Paschal lambs had to be slain, the True Lamb was sacrificed on the Cross. (See note on Matt. xxvi. 17 and Excursus V. in Dr Farrar's S. Luke.)

APPENDIX B. S. PETER'S DENIALS.

The difficulties which attend all attempts at forming a Harmony of the Gospels are commonly supposed to reach something like a climax here. Very few events are narrated at such length by all four Evangelists; and in no case is the narrative so carefully divided by them into distinct portions as in the case of S. Peter's threefold denial of his Master. Here therefore we have an exceptionally good opportunity of comparing the Evangelists with one another piece by piece; and the result is supposed to be damaging to them. A careful comparison of the four accounts will establish one fact beyond the reach of reasonable dispute ;that, whatever may be the relation between the narratives of S. Matthew and S. Mark, those of S. Luke and S. John are independent both of the first two Gospels and of one another. So that we have at least three independent accounts.

It would be an instructive exercise for the student to do for himself what Canon Westcott has done for him (Additional Note on John xviii : comp. Alford on Matt. xxvi. 69), and tabulate the four accounts, comparing not merely verse with verse but clause with clause.

His first impression of great discrepancy between the accounts will convince him of the independence of at least three of them. And a further consideration will probably lead him to see that this independence and consequent difference are the result of fearless truthfulness. Each Evangelist, conscious of his own fidelity, tells the story in his own way without caring to correct his account by that of others. In the midst of the differences of details there is quite enough substantial agreement to lead us to the conclusion that each narrative would be found to be accurate if we were acquainted with all the circumstances. All four Evangelists tell us that three denials were predicted (Matt. xxvi. 34; Mark xiv. 30; Luke xxii. 34; John xiii. 38) and all four give three denials (Matt. xxvi. 70, 72, 74; Mark xiv. 68, 70, 71; Luke xxii. 57, 58, 60; John xviii. 17, 25, 27).

The apparent discrepancy with regard to the prediction is that S. Luke and S. John place it during the Supper, S. Mark and S. Matthew during the walk to Gethsemane. But the words of the first two Evangelists do not quite necessarily mean that the prediction was made precisely where they mention it. Yet, if the more natural conclusion be adopted, that they do mean to place the prediction on the road to Gethsemane; then, either the prediction was repeated, or they have placed it out of the actual chronological sequence. As already remarked elsewhere, chronology is not what the Evangelists care to give us.

The numerous differences of detail with regard to the three denials, especially the second and third, will sink into very small proportions if we consider that the attack of the maid which provoked the first denial, about which the four accounts are very harmonious, led to a series of attacks gathered into two groups, with intervals during which S. Peter was left unmolested. Each Evangelist gives us salient points in these groups of attacks and denials. As to the particular words put into the mouth of S. Peter and his assailants, it is quite unnecessary to suppose

that they are intended to give us more than the substance of what was said (see Introductory Note to chap. iii.). Let us remember S. Augus tine's wise and moderate words respecting the differences of detail in the narratives of the storm on the lake. "There is no need to enquire which of these exclamations was really uttered. For whether they uttered some one of these three, or other words which none of the Evangelists have recorded, yet conveying the same sense, what does it matter?" De Cons. Ev. 11. xxiv. 55.

APPENDIX C.

ORDER OF THE CHIEF EVENTS OF THE PASSION.

This part of the Gospel narrative is like the main portion of it in this, that the exact sequence of events cannot in all cases be determined with certainty, and that the precise date of events can in no case be determined with certainty. But for the sake of clearness of view it is well to have a tentative scheme; bearing in mind that, like a plan drawn from description instead of from sight, while it helps us to understand and realise the description, it must be defective and may here and there be misleading.

SUMMARY OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE PARAGRAPH VII. 53-VIII. 11.

(1) The paragraph is absent from every known Greek MS. earlier than the eighth century, except the Western and eccentric D. A and C are defective here, but in the missing leaves there cannot have been room for the paragraph. In L and A (eighth and ninth cent.) there are spaces, shewing that the transcribers knew of its existence, but did not find it in their copies. (2) In the whole range of Greek patristic literature of the first nine centuries there is no trace of any knowledge of it, excepting a reference to it in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24) as an authority for the reception of penitents; but without any indication of the book from which it is quoted. (3) In Oriental Versions it is found only in inferior MSS., excepting the Ethiopic and the Jerusalem Syriac. (4) The silence of Tertullian in his De Pudicitiâ and of Cyprian in Ep. LV. (which treats of the admission of adulterous persons to penitence) and the evidence of MSS. shew that it was absent from the earliest Latin texts.

Thus it is absent from the oldest representatives of every kind of evidence; Greek MSS., Versions, and Fathers both Greek and Latin. With regard to the authorities which contain or support the section several points must be noted. (1) D is notorious for insertions and additions, such as Matt. xx. 29 and Luke vi. 5. But nowhere else has it an insertion so considerable. Jerome's statement that this paragraph is found in evangelio secundum Johannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus' implies that in the majority of MSS. it is not found. In many of the extant MSS. which contain the passage it is marked as dubious. (2) The date of the text of the Apostolic Constitutions is uncertain, and we cannot tell whether the reference is to the Gospel narrative or to tradition. The earliest Greek commentator who notices the section, Euthymius Zygadenus in the twelfth century, marks it as probably an interpolation. (3) The MS. of the Jerusalem