ART. X.-MISCELLANIES.

[UNDER this title we purpose to publish, from time to time, short articles, either original, or selected from foreign journals, on topics of Biblical Literature and Theology. We shall also admit brief letters, from any who may be disposed to question statements of fact, doctrine, or interpretation found in the pages of this Journal.

I.

On "the Second Sabbath after the First”

[By J. Von Gumpach. From the Journal of Sacred Literature, July, 1849.] Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν.—Matt. xii, 1. Καὶ ἐγένετο παραπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων κ. τ. λ. Mark ii, 23.

Εγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων κ. τ. λ. -Luke vi, 1.

Ir not unfrequently occurs, in the three first Gospels, that the sacred writers differ from each other as to the more or less concise terms which they individually employ to express the same common import; and that the one particularizes what is stated by the two others in a more general manner-a variance of which the passages submitted to the attention of our readers furnish a striking illustration. Whilst both St. Matthew and St. Mark relate the incident mentioned to have taken place on one of those Sabbath days on which at that time our Lord, accompanied by his disciples. used to take a walk through the corn-fields, St. Luke states it to have happened év oаßßáτ dενTEρожрúтР. The meaning of this, evidently a technical term, which occurs in no other place, has from the days of the early Fathers been subject to various interpretations; numerous conjectures having been formed in regard to it. some of them remarkable for their peculiarity, none, however, for either a rational or a plausible character. The only point upon which the majority of, if not all critics are agreed, is, the Greek word deurεpóñрwτоç conveys generally the sense of "the first in reference to a second." In conformity with this opinion, Scaliger (Emend. temp., p. 557) asserted our oáßßarov devтεрóжрwтоv to be the first Sabbath reckoned from the second day in Passover, (, Levit. xxiii, 11;) and Lightfoot (ad Matt. xii, 2) having adopted the same view, it derived much additional strength from his authority, and has since maintained itself, almost to the exclusion of every other hypothesis. By Van Til and Wetstein the σáßßarov devtepómputor was assumed to be the first Sabbath of the second month, (Ijar;) and by Capellus and Rhenfeld the first Sabbath in the year from the date of its second epoch, the Jews commencing their ecclesiastical year with the month of Nisan, and their civil year with the month of Tishri. Others have ascribed to our expression the meaning of the first of two succeeding Sabbaths, or that of the first Sabbath in the second year of the sabbatical cyclus. Others again have proposed still different interpretations.

Whatever may be the relative merit of these various conjectures, they are not only unsupported by real argument, but, in our judgment, are moreover irreconcilable with the sacred text itself, inasmuch as they represent the Jewish year to include but one σáßß. devrep., whilst the words of the Evangelists most clearly imply that those festival days were of at least not unfrequent occurrence. In the former

1

case St. Luke ought to, and undoubtedly would, have written tv tậ oaßßúry δευτεροπρώτῳ.

The reason why every attempt at a natural and satisfactory explanation of the sentence under consideration has hitherto proved unsuccessful, would seem to us to be, that the term devтepóñρwτos has, à priori, been taken to contain a chronological element, without any inquiry as to whether there be the very slightest ground for such an assumption. In our opinion there is not. Supposing even the oúßß. devrep. might be shown to correspond, in our parlance, to the first Sunday in a leapyear, or to the first or second Sunday after the Epiphany or after Trinity, what could possibly have been the object of the sacred writer in making mention of such a circumstance? - The essential question was and is, whether the disciples of our Lord did transgress the law at all; not whether they did transgress it in a leap-year or in a common year, or on a first or second Sunday after Trinity. That question St. Luke negatives at the very outset of his narration; and yet upon its silent affirmation theologians and commentators ever have insisted, and still do insist.

According, namely, to the Jewish law, (Exod. xxi, 14; Mishna, tr. Sabb. vii, 1; Sanhed. vii, 8, &c.,) observed in all its rigour at the time of our Lord, the plucking and rubbing of ears of corn on the Sabbath, both as being a preparation of food and an unnecessary exercise of the body, undoubtedly constituted an offence punishable with death. But that the disciples had, at all events, not (as must be admitted by those who hold the cúßß. devrep. to be a Sabbath proper) rendered themselves culpable of so serious a transgression, is proved by the very nature of the charge brought against them, the Pharisees simply asking, "Why do ye that which it is not permitted to do on Sabbath-days?" True, the Authorized Version renders the words ô oȧK teori noiɛiv of the text, "that which it is not lawful to do," but erroneously so, as will become apparent when it is remembered, that the Talmudic treatise on the Sabbath contains a long and tedious list of works prohibited and permitted to be done on that day, and to the latter class of which the subtile and casuistical question of the Pharisees evidently refers. If the occurrence had taken place on a Sabbath proper, the transgression of the disciples could have admitted of no doubt; and the Pharisees, having a legal accusation to prefer against them, would hardly, though met by the striking counter-question of our Lord, have evinced a forbearance not only in dissonance with their public character, but, moreover, with their public duty. St. Luke, therefore, as already intimated, rebuts their charge at once as a groundless imputation, by premising that the day of the incident was a Sabbath of second rank, on which the law freely and positively did permit the censured act, (Exod. xii, 16; Mishna, tr. Megilla, i, 8.)

"Sabbath

Thus we take the simple meaning of σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον to be a of second rank," in assigning to aрúrоs the sense of "the highest or the best of its kind," in which it occurs in numerous passages of the New Testament, and translating the words ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ of St. Luke literally, “ And it came to pass on a second-rate Sabbath," or freely, “ And it came to pass on one of the minor high-feastdays." Such a day is by the Talmudists called 777, and its observances differed but little from those of the Sabbath proper, excepting that on the former the preparation of every kind of food was permitted, and that it was altogether not quite so rigorously kept as the day of Jehovah, (Jer. Gem. tr. Jevam., viii, 4.)

The correctness of our view in regard to this much-discussed passage, imparting, as it does, to the latter a clear and forcible motive, and placing the imputed transgression of the disciples in its true light, is, we venture to think, so striking in itself as to require no further proof. Still we may as well here adduce what little evidence FOURTH SERIES, VOL. II.-32.

remains in support of our interpretation. The Pharisees asking the disciples, “Why do ye that which it is not permitted to do tv rois cáßßao?" the use of the plural form of oußß. in this connexion seems to us to pointedly indicate that the Sabbath proper is not meant; for if so, the Pharisees could not but have said év Tỷ σaßßáry. St. Matthew certainly has ἐν σαββάτῳ for ἐν τοῖς σάββασι; but this construction, so far from impairing, tends materially to strengthen our argument, because σáßßarov, without the definite article, being, in the days of our Lord, a common term for highfeastday and Sabbath, (which may be satisfactorily proved from Josephus, Artiq, xvi, 6, 2,) the use of the definite article, as a natural consequence, became indispensable whenever the Sabbath proper, as distinguished from a high-feastday, was to be expressed, (comp. St. Luke vi, 7.) St. Matthew, therefore, by evidently avoiding the definite article, shows that he was not speaking of the . In conclusion, we may add that also the general terms of the Gospel narratives are highly unfavourable to the supposition of the related occurrence having taken place on a Sabbath, inasmuch as on that day it was unlawful for the Jews to go beyond a Sabbath-day's journey, (Acts i, 12,) a short distance of between five-eighths and three-fourths of an English mile, (Joseph., Antiq., xx, 8, 6; Wars, v, 2, 3,) from the confines of their habitation, or from the walls of Jerusalem, ( Gem. tr. Eruvin, iv, 42.)

Among the strongest proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of the sacred writings of the New Testament are to be numbered the difficulties they present. In most cases, however, as in the present instance, those difficulties may be solved by viewing and attentively considering them in connexion with the leading feature of the narrative, of which they stand part, and by bringing to bear upon them a sufficient amount of that knowledge of the constitution at the period of Jewish life and society with which the Evangelists suppose their readers to be familiar. Not unfrequently, therefore, it may happen that the true import of some Scriptural passage appears to us obscure and difficult, merely because it was judged by the writer so self-evident as to require no explanation.

II.

Identification of the Historical Periods comprised within the "Seventy Weeks" in Daniel ix, 24-27.

SEVENTY heptads are decreed [to transpire] upon thy nation, and upon thy holy city, for [entirely] closing the [punishment of] sin, and for sealing up [the retributive sentence against their] offences, and for expiating guilt, and for bringing in [the state of] perpetual righteousness, and for sealing up [the verification of] vision and prophet, and for anointing Holy of Holies. And thou shalt know and consider, [that] from [the time of] a command occurring for returning and building [i. e, for rebuilding] Jerusalem, till [the coming of] Messiah prince, [shall intervene] seven heptads, and sixty and two heptads; [its] street shall return and be built, [i. e., shall be rebuilt,] and [its] fosse, and [that] in distress of the times. And after the sixty and two heptads Messiah shall be cut off, and nothing [shall be left] to him; and people of the coming prince shall destroy the city and the holy [building.] and his end [of fighting shall come] with [or, like] a flood, and until the end of warring [shall occur the] decreed desolations. And he shall establish a covenant toward many [persons during] one heptad, and [at the] middle of the heptad he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering; and upon [the topmost] corner [of the temple shall be reared] abominations [i. e., idolatrous images] of [the] desolator, and [that] till completion, and a decreed [one] shall pour out upon [the] desolator.

I have been unable to satisfy myself of the consistency of any interpretation of this remarkable prophecy that I have met with, and would therefore propose a new elucidation, in accordance with the preceding literal translation and the following diagram; in doing which I need not dwell upon the minor peculiarities of phraseology.

Sequel.-Jerusalem razed by the Romans, A. D. 70.

In verse 24 we have a general view of the last great period of the Jewish Church, (see the middle line in the diagram.) It was to embrace four hundred and ninety years, from their permanent release from Babylonian bondage, till the time when God would cast them finally off for their incorrigible unbelief. Within this space Jehovah would fulfil what he had predicted, and accomplish all his designs respecting them under their special relation. The particulars noted in this cursory survey are, first, the conclusion of the then existing exile, (expressed in three variations, of which the last phrase, “expiating guilt," explains the two former, "closing the sin" and "sealing up offences;") next, the fulfilment of ancient prophecy, by ushering in the religious prosperity of Gospel times; and, lastly, as the essential feature, the consecration of the Messiah to his redeeming office.

The only "command" answering to that of verse 25, is that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, issued in the seventh year of his reign, and recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra, as Prideaux has abundantly shown, and as most critics agree. At this time, also, more Jews returned to their home than at any other, and the literal as well as spiritual "rebuilding of Jerusalem" was prosecuted with unsurpassed vigour. The period here referred to extends "till the Messiah," (see the upper line of the diagram;) that is, as far as his public recognition as such by the Voice at his baptism, the "anointing" of the previous verse; and not to his death,- -as is commonly supposed, but which is afterward referred to in very different language,—nor to his birth,-which would make the entire compass of the prophecy vary much from four hundred and ninety years. The period of this verse is divided into two portions of "seven heptads" and "sixty-two heptads," as if the "command" from which it dates were renewed at the end of the first portion; and this we find was the case. Ezra, under whom this reformation of the State and religion began, was succeeded in the work by Nehemiah, who, having occasion to return to Persia in the twenty

* I lay no stress upon the circumstance that the Hebrew term here employed for "weeks," is not in the usual feminine form, but has the masculine termination of the plural ; for this latter form also occurs elsewhere (as with Daniel himself, ch. x, 2, et al.) in the undeniable sense of a simple hebdomad of seven days. The sense of a cycle of seven years is here required by the tenor of the whole passage, which speaks of events not to be found within the compass of a year and a half.

fifth year after the commencement of the work, (Neh. xiii, 6,) returned "after certain days," and found that it had so far retrograded that he was obliged to institute it anew. The length of his stay at court is not given, but it must have been considerable to allow so great a backsliding among the lately reformed Jews. Prideaux contends that his return to Judea was after an absence of twenty-four years;* and I have supposed the new reform then set on foot by him to have occupied a little over three years, which is certainly none too much time for the task, (see the lower line of the diagram.) The "rebuilding of the streets and intrenchments in times of distress," seems to refer, in its literal sense, to the former part especially of the forty-nine years, (compare Nehemiah iv,) very little having been previously done towards rebuilding the city, although former decrees had been issued for repairing the temple ; and, in its spiritual import, it applies to the whole time, and peculiarly to the three years of the last reform.

The "sixty-two weeks" of verse 26, be it observed, are not said to commence at the end of the "seven weeks" of verse 25, but, in more general terms, after the "distressing times" during which the reform was going on; hence, they properly date from the end of that reform, when things became permanently settled. It is in consequence of a failure to notice this variation in the limits of the two periods of sixtytwo weeks referred to by the prophet, (compare the middle portions of the upper and of the lower line in the diagram,) that critics have thrown the whole scheme of this prophecy into disorder, in applying to the same event such irreconcilable language as is used in describing some of its different elements. By the ravaging invasion of foreigners here foretold, is manifestly intended the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman troops, whose emperor's son, Titus, is here styled a "prince" in command of them. The same allusion is also clear from the latter part of the following verse. But this event must not be included within the seventy weeks; because, in the first place, the accomplishment would not sustain such a view,-from the decree, B. C. 459, to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, being five hundred and twentyeight years; secondly, the language of verse 24 does not require it,—as it is not embraced in the purposes for which the seventy weeks are there stated to be appointed to Jerusalem and its inhabitants; and, lastly, the Jews then no longer formed a link in the chain of ecclesiastical history in the Divine sense,-Christian believers having become the true descendants of Abraham. At the close of the verse we have the judgments with which God would afflict the Jews for cutting off the Messiah: these would be so severe, that the prophet (or, rather, the angel instructing him) cannot refrain from introducing them here, in connexion with that event, although he afterward adverts to them in their proper order. What these sufferings were, Josephus narrates with a minuteness that chills the blood, affording a wonderful coincidence with the prediction of Moses in Deut. xxviii, 15–68; they are here called a “flood,” the well-known Scripture emblem of terrible political calamities, (as in Isa. viii, 7, 8; Dan. xi, 10, 22; Nah. i, 8.)

Verse 27 has given the greatest trouble to critics of any in the whole passage; and. indeed, the common theory, by which the seventy weeks are made to end with the crucifixion, is flatly contradicted by the cessation of the daily sacrificial offerings at

* See the arguments in his Connexion, sub anno 409. I place the whole prophecy a year earlier.

† Namely, by Cyrus, the Medo-Persian conqueror of the Babylonians, who thus put an end to the "seventy years' captivity," B. C. 536, as in Ezra i, 1; and by Darius Hystaspes, the Ahasuerus of Esther and of Ezra iv, 6,—who renewed Cyrus's decree, rescinding its prohibition by his immediate predecessor Cambyses, B. C. 518.