Passover (Hastings' Dictionary)

Our knowledge of the origin and early history of the Passover is derived from the accounts of the OT, supplemented by the relevant material thus far patnedt nan the study of the early customs of other Semitic and primitive peoples. The most important es are, of course, found in the laws of the Pent., and for our present pur- pose we shall accept the generally received con- clusions as to the age and authorship of the various strata of legislation (see HEXATEUCH).

But even so, our attempt to trace the history and Siete ment of this feast will necessitate considerable critical discussion. 1. Old Testament References. A. In ΡΟΝ and Ezekiel. 2. Deuteronomy. 8. Ezekiel. C. Résumé. iL Origin and Primitive Significance. 1. Name. 2. Older Views. 8. The Offering of the Firstborn. 4. A Feast of Atonement, 6. A Blood Covenant. 6. Conclusion. iL The Post-exilic Passover. 1. Manner of Observance. 2. Number of Participants. 8. Time. Literature. i. OT REFERENCES.

—The passages to be con- sidered are—Ex 23!5 34% 127-2? Dt 16!-8, Ezk 4521, Ex 12)-3.@-@ Ly 235, Nu 918. 9816 Jos 5%, Hos 211 95 12909), Am 5?! 819 Is 30%, 2 K 2371-3, 2 Ch 8:2 30. 35!-19, Ezr 6'%-, A. Inthe Lawand Ezk.—1. JE.—In the so-called ‘Second Decalogue’ (Ex 34!%) we have the com- mand (*) ‘Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover {πο 35 n31) be left until the morning.

’ The same prohibition — Ex 2318 in the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Ex 20-23%), but instead of the phrase ‘ the sacri- fice of the feast of the Passover’ we there have ‘neither shall the fat of my feast (35 25m) remain all night until the morning.’ Many have held that this latter expression has precisely the same content as the former, and have thus established the entire agreement of the two verses. We should then find our feast mentioned in the very oldest ortions of the Law.

That this is really the case, however, becomes somewhat doubtful upon closer examination. In both sections we have mention of the three great feasts of later legislation, which are to be kept unto J’—the feast of Unleavened Bread, of Weeks, and of Ingathering. And accord- ing to subsequent usage it is in connexion with the first, the feast of Unleavened Bread, held in the month of Abib, the month in which Israel came out of Egypt (Ex 23" 3.

418), that we should expect to find mention of the Passover. It might, indeed, seem that this was intended in Ex 34!-, where, breaking the parallelism to the account of Ex 23, there is a command regarding the offering of the firstborn males of all the herds. One might naturally conclude that this sacrifice came at the time of the preceding feast.

However this may be, the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ in its present form knows nothing of such a connexion, for there the firstborn is to be offered on the eighth day, after 227, Nowack et al. make this a later insertion see Arch. ii. 147, n. 3). Furthermore, there is in the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ nothing that can be legitimately interpreted as a reference to the Pass- over.

This is certainly true of the expression in 23'%, which one would naturally limit neither to the Passover nor to the sacrifice of the firstborn, but rather would understand as referring to all bloody offerings and as including all feasts. Possibly we should so vocalize as to read the lural ‘my sacrifices’ and ‘my feasts’ (31, "20; ef. ill.-Rys. Com. in loco. In Ex 34% LXX reads θυμιαμάτων μου).

As to Ex 34, where the explicit mention of the Passover is met with at present, we need to note, first, that the term agg (ποθ πὶ 3n) is nowhere else in the Pent. applied to the Pass- over, but confined mainly, if not exclusively, to the three great feasts mentioned above (cf. Driver, Deut. p. 188; and on hagg, Wellh. Reste Arab. Heidentums, 1897, pp. 681 and 79ff.) Such a usage (cf.

Ezk 45") as we have here indicates the blending of Passover and mazzith (feast of Un- leavened Bread); but in Dt, where this actually occurs, we find no such designation for the Easter festival as a whole. It may well be, as some maintain (Wellh. Proleg.‘ p. 84; Benzinger, Arch. 470 n.; W. R. Smith, Lncyc. Brit.® xviii. 343 as against ARS 221 n.)

, that the expression is a later insertion which makes specific application of the more general principle stated in 23, If, however, we think the passage should be retained and assigned to J, as many do (Nowack, l.c. ii. 147, n. 3; Bertholet, Deut. p. 50, e¢ al.), then we may claim the early occurrence of the name Passover, but can not affirm any connexion between it and mazzéth.

The point of the verse would be, that in the case of the Basaran, as in that of other animal sacrifices, everything in the nature of putrefaction must be avoided. [Ὁ would thus stand as a pre- cursor of the kindred Levitical ordinances of later times. We find among other primitive peoples injunctions of like nature in relation to sacrifice (ct. RS p. 221; Smend, AT Relig.-Gesch. p. 140). Ex 1277 may be next considered.

It states how Moses summons the elders, and bids them go and kill the Passover, as though such a command needed no further explanation. With a bunch of hyssop (cf. Lv 14) they are to stain the lintel and the doorposts, and no one is to leave his home until the morning. All this is to be done because J’ is to _ through and smite the Egyptians; but where He sees the blood on the doorway He will not allow the destroyer to enter.

This same cere- mony is to_be observed hereafter as a lasting memorial. In the Promised Land they are to keep it, and een its significance to their children. They are to tell them it is the sacrifice of the Pass- over to J”, who passed over the houses (Π3 Sy mo5) of Israel, and delivered them, when He smote the Egyptians. On hearing this the people bow in worship and proceed to do as commanded.

It is generally recognized that we have in this section an account not originally belonging to the present context, although it seems at first sight to fit in admirably with the preceding narrative, and to tell how Moses imparted the command to the people which he had received from J”. It is, how- ever, a very different command in content and in language. The essential details previously given (ν.5 8.) are not included, and, what is even more important, new ones are introduced and emphasized.

There is no hint that it is the firstborn who are slain, no allusion to the paschal meal, but the blood ceremonial is the all-important feature. The conception is, that the blood stained on the doorway works exemption from destruction for alf On the translation threshold in v.2 for basin (η0), cf. below being seven days with its dam (Ex 22%); cf, Ly | iis. PASSOVER within ; but there is no explanation as to how this comes about. The resemblance to v.

™ may ex- pan why the section wasinserted here. Whatever he source from which it came, the simplicity of detail as over against the former account (νν.}.18) supports the view of its purity and independence. In its essence it may go back to JE, even though, as most agree, its present form is later than Dt (cf. Wellh. Comp. d. Hex. p. 75; Dill.-Rys. Com. pp- 111, 126; Nowack, ArcA, ii. 148 n. 1). These are the only passages where we can look for explicit references in JE.

But there are, besides, the notices of Israel’s oft-repeated request for per- mission to go forth and celebrate a feast in the wilderness of Sinai (Ex 318 716 8.255. 10° et passim). These indicate the existence at this period of a festival that may in some way be related to the Passover. We return to this question later on (ii. 6). 2. Deuteronomy.—Here in 1018 we have the earliest undisputed explicit reference to our feast and use of the word Passover (cf. above, and Wellh. Proleg.* 84n.)

Its observance, we are told, falls in the month of Abib, the month of ears (cf. Ex 134 23 3418), which is the older name for Nisan (Mar.-Apr.), because in this month J” brought them out of Egypt at night. At this season they are to sacrifice to J” the Passover, consisting of sheep and cattle, at the place which He may choose for His worship. With the sacrificial meal and during seven days they are to eat only unleavened bread.

This is the bread of affliction, because of the trepidation with which they came forth from Egypt. So are they to be ever reminded of that anxious day. During the seven days no leaven is to be allowed to remain within Israel's borders, and of the offerings of the first day none of the flesh is to be permitted to remain until the morning (ef. Ex 2318 34%). The Passover may not be sacrificed at one’s dwelling-place, but only at that place which J” shall choose for His worship.

There at the setting of the sun, at the time when they came forth from Egypt, it shall be sacrificed. Six days shall οΊθ γε ζῇ bread be eaten, and on the seventh there shall be a festal gathering to J”, and no work shall be done. As com with other legislation, four points are especially noteworthy. (a) Instead of merely introducing mazzéth(P), the Passover here becomes an eel τὶ of it, i.e. the Passover day becomes It is striking that so the first day of that feast.

much attention should be paid in these eight verses to this one ordinance, and so little to the further regulations. The explanation may be that the centralization of all worship in one sanctuary, which is the novel and most important feature of Deuteronomic legislation, especially affected the Passover, and so required more explicit formulation (cf. Nowack, Arch, ii. p. 153).

But even then other difficulties still remain, and it may be reason- ably doubted whether the section stands at present in its original form. Vvy.**~» seem an interpolation into the connected account contained in vv.’ 3 and 5-7 (wx77 ον in v.4 would then, of course, be a later addition). V.8, which makes further mention of mazz6th, seems incongruous in suddenly speaking of six days when seven were named before (ν.)

The stated assembly (ny) recalls the priestly legislation, and contradicts the preceding command to return home on the following morning. So it seems probable that this apparent blending of the two feasts comes from reconstruction by a writer of later date than the Deuteronomist.* (δ) It is “ΟἹ. Steue el, ‘Deut.’ in Mandkom. He assigns the Passover to J and mazyéth to E, and considers all references to mazzoth here as later additions after the union of J and E, te, makes RJ® later than D; cf.

Bertholet in Kurzer Handcom, ; Cornill, Findeit. p. 25, regards νυ, 5. 4as an interpolation correct- ing v.8; Stade, Geach. i. 658, thinks vv.14 and δ are irrecon- ble doublets. In support of this, cf. Holzinger, Hex. p. 399. PASSOVER expressly stated and strongly emphasized that the Passover is not to be observed as a domestic rite in the individual homes, but at the temple in Jeru- salem (vv.

*7), But this does not mean, as we see, that it is to take the form of a general offering for all (so Ezk), but that it is rather made up o the private individual sacrifices (ef. Wellh. Pro: eg. p. 89). (c) The offering is not limited to a lamb (Ex 12), but may be taken from the flock or the herd (v.2). To explain this statement in the light of later usage, i.e.

as referring to the private sacri- fices alluded to in 2Ch (30%-% 357%), the later hagigah (a13n), or peace-oflerings, does violence to the text. This would mean the mention of a detail, and silence regarding the all-important feature. Furthermore, the use of the sing. in νν. δ" Τ shows that the writer has in his mind the sacrifice on the Passover evening.* (d) Another point to be noted is the manner of preparing the Passover sacrifice. It is to be boiled (v.7).

+ The OT allusions seem to poink to this as an early method of preparing sacri- ce (Jg 64%, 1 § 25-15; and cf. Ex 23! 34%, Dt 14%), and some think that this was gradually replaced by the more refined mode of roasting (cf. Benzinger, Arch. 435, 451; Wellh. Proleg.* p. 68). The pro- hibition of the use of leavened bread is found in the three great codes of the Pent., buat nowhere else is it called the bread of affliction (sy ond).

We can compare this with the account in Ex 12% % (JE), which is suggested by the expression ‘in trepida- tion’ (ppna Ex 12"), 3. Ezk 45"-*,—Turning next to Ezk, we find the Passover mentioned in a section discussing the part of the prince in the feasts and sacrifices (45"-46"), It is assigned to the 14th day of the first month, and spoken of as a feast of seven days, during which unleavened bread is to be eaten.

On the first day the prince is to prepare a bullock as a sin-offering for himself and the people of the land, and otherwise daily a he-goat ἘΣ this same pur- pose. There shall be, besides, a daily burnt-offering of seven bullocks and seven rams, with an accom- penying daily offering of fourteen ephahs of meal (509°6 lit.), and fourteen hins of oil (84-98 lit.)

This is such a large quantity that Cornill would so correct as to make it indicate the amount for the entire seven days; but it is probably better explained by Ezk’s conception of the fruitfulness of the land in the new age. The sacred year is here clearly divided into halves, and so the sug- gestion (Smend, Bertholet) that v.

™ has been corrected according to Ex 128 (Ly 23°, Nu 28"*), seems in place, especially as the text has been dis- turbed (myse for nyse), The parallelism of the feasts makes probable an original reading, ‘In the first month, on the fifteenth day of the month, e shall have the Passover’ (cf. Bertholet, Com. in ‘oco). The Passover appears with the atoning significance which Ezk puts into all the cultus. This is manifested especially in the sin-offering, which is not elsewhere so connected with it.

The festival is to be celebrated throughout at the central sanctuary, whereas Dt seems to demand this ex- ressly for only the first part. The daily sacrifice is accurately defined, and the record is otherwise more explicit than Dt in naming not only the month, but in giving further the exact day. As in Dt, it is a seven-day festival, and mazgéth is so blended with the Passover as almost to lose ite * Cf. Driver, Com. p. 191; Bertholet, Com. 80; Wellh Proleg.4 p. 99; Nowack, Arch, il, p. 153, n.

1. J. Miller (Kritischer Versuch δεν d. Ureprung u. d. geach, Entwicklung ἃ. Pesach- u. Mazzothfestes, Bonn, 1884) makes this a later custom than P. Against this see Dill.-Rya, Com, + ὃ, primarily ‘to become ripe,’ but is the usual word (in Piel) for boiling, so used in related dislecta. The later (har. monizing?) expression ΘᾺ ἊΣ (2 Ch 85!) cannot count against this usage. The usual verb for roasting is mba; of. Driver, fn loco; and Nowack, AreA., li. 153, no. 3. PASSOVER identity.

There is no mention of a Passover lamb or of any private celebration whatever. It is rather the sacrifice of the community offered by the prince for himself and the people. 4. Lv 23°, Ex 1921.12. @-61, Nu gi-4 2816 Jos 5!°,— As we pass to the body of law assigned to the Sera stratum, we can in with the ‘Law of oliness’ (Lv 17-26), which is pac ca to embody in a later modified form an earlier “a eared body of law.

A very close relationship clearly exists between this section and Ezk, but as a whole it is probably later (but see the discussion of this point in Driver, LOT® 147ff., and the literature there cited). All that bears on our subject is confined to the simple statement that the Pass- over, as the opening festival of the year, is to be held on the evening of the 14th of the first month (23°).

Apparently it is mentioned only for the sake of completeness in the enumeration of the gir and presupposes the fuller legislation of x 12. Ex 12'® explains the origin of the Passover, and gives details not elsewhere mentioned. While they are yet in Egypt, the LorD speaks to Moses and Aaron, and directs that they reckon the current month as the first month of the year.

In antici- pation of what is to come, they are to command all the congregation to take, on the tenth day of the month, lambs according to their families. Where the family is too small to dispose of a lamb, the head of the household is to unite with his neighbour, and they together are to take one, the number thus included and the capacity for con- sumption of each member being taken into account. A lamb or a kid may be taken, but it shall be a perfect animal (so usually for sacrifices, cf.

Ly 22"), a male (cf. Lv 1* 10), and one year old (cf. Lv 22”; for all these points cf. Benzinger, Arch. 451 et passim). It shall be kept until the 14th of the month, and then all the congregation shall slay it (i.e. each his lamb) at the evening hour. With the blood they are to stain the lintel and doorposts of the house in which the feast is held. The flesh shall be eaten that night with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs.

It may not be eaten raw or boiled, but roasted, the victim being kept intact with head, legs, and inwards. All remnants shall be burned that night, and no part left till morning. The participants are to eat in haste, prepared for a journey, with their flowing garments girt about them, their sandals bound on, their staves in their hands. For this is the feast of the Lorp’s Pass- over, who saith, ‘I will pass through the land of Beye! ths night, and smite all the firstborn of man an st.

And against all the gods of Egypt will I execute judgment. Iam the Lorp.’ The blood shall be a sign to mark the houses where Israel dwells, and into these the destroying plague shall not enter when the LorD smites Egypt. In vv.*! comes an added ordinance as to ne who may observe the Passover. The context implies that this was given in Succoth, apparently because of the presence of the mixed multitude (v.); but all the allusions show that the observance in the Holy Land is especially intended.

No foreigner, sojourner, or hired servant may eat the Passover. Only the circumcised are to be admitted under an circumstances. If a stranger be circumcised wit all the males of his household, and thus becomes identified with the Jewish nation, he may observe it. So also circumcised servants are to be included, for all Israel must observe it. In v.

“ we have repeated, from the previous section, the particulars which serve to lay emphasis on the idea of unity which is here throughout made so prominent. Vv.” would seem to mean that ever after they observed the Passover as here directed. V." repeats “>, and is not in place at present. PASSOVER In Nu 9!" another law is added. The date of this is given as the first month of the second year after the Exodus. In obedience to the command of J” given through Moses, they observe the Pass- over.

But some who were ceremonially unclean by reason of contact with a dead body are excluded, and they come to ask why they must be de rived of their share in the sacrifice. Moses seeks in- structions from J”, and receives command that any who are unclean at the Passover season, or who are absent on a journey, shall observe it on the 14th day of the second month in the same manner as the regular Passover is observed. Several details are repeated (vv."

- 13) : unleavened bread and bitter herbs are to be eaten with it; nothing shall remain until the morning, and no bone is to be broken. If a man who is not hindered in either of the above ways fails to keep the Passover, he is to be cut off Pom the nation. Strangers must observe the same regulations that are binding for the Jews.

Once more—and again apparently for the sake of completeness—we find an allusion to the Pass- over in Nu 28%, The section deals with regular and special sacrifices ; but since there are no temple sacrifices in the case of the Passover, only the mention of its occurrence on the 14th of the first month was needed. The same writer records in Jos 5" the first Pass- over in Canaan.

At the close of the wandering in the wilderness, after the renewal of circum- cision, it is celebrated on the 14th of the month while they are encamped at Gilgal. These accounts of P, which we have thus brought into review, show certain divergences from the ordinances of the previous writers, and reveal a wealth of detail not elsewhere found. As over against Dt (as it now stands) and Ezk, the Passover is always carefully distinguished from mazzoth, which begins on the following day.

The celebration is domestic, and not apparently at all connected with the central sanctuary. Dt we found the time given simply as the month of Abib. P does not use this name, but calls it the first month, and gives the exact day; in both these ΤΟΣ Ια ΒΈΤΘΕΙ͂ΣΕ with the present form of Ezk. hy the lamb was chosen on the tenth day, so long in advance, we are not told. Possibly it is because of the significance attached to the decad among ancient ples (cf. Nowack, Arch. ii. p. 172, n.

3; Ideler, Chronol. i. p. 279, on Attic month), or it may be to fit into some scheme giving this day a special significance like that of the corresponding day of the seventh month celebrated as New Year’s Day (Ly 25°, Ezk 401), and then as the Day of Atonement (Ly 16”), The killing of the lamb and the staining of the doorway was probably done i the father of the house. This feature is made of less importance than in 12%, and there is no mention of the hyssop.

The significance of the command to roast the lamb whole with all its members, and to consume it before the morning, may be made to consist either in the desire to keep its parts from profanation, or to emphasize the idea of its unity, t.e. as a single sacrifice valid for all in the common grou which partake of it (ef. Bahr, Symbolik, p. 635). he command to roast might be explained along these same lines, as also the prohibition of the earlier mode of boiling.

Eatin the flesh raw would mean the eating of the blood, which was always forbidden (e.g. Lv 7%). With this and the other details noted above we can compare the accounts of certain Arab sacrifices, where a camel was killed and devoured—skin, bones, entrails, and all—in wild haste, between the appearance of the day-star and sunrise (cf. RS- p- 338 tf.; Well. Reste d. Arab. Heid.2119 ff.)

In our account, of course, all are dressed and eat in haste, PASSOVER that they may avail themselves of the opportunity for flight which will follow the impending plague. The bitter herbs (Ex 12°, Nu 9") are not explained. They may have at first been used as relishes, apart from any atoning significance or reference to the suffering in Egypt. which later rabbinical writers gave them.* In P the covenant idea is made especially prominent.

So at the first Passover, and so also at each recurrence of the festival, when this covenant is renewed. This explains why only those who have entered into the unity of the nation by circumcision can participate ; and, on the other hand, why any one who does not so participate is to be cut off from the nation.

To meet emergencies which might work injustice,—such as necessary absence on a journey, ceremonial impurity arising from contact with the dead,—a second opportunity is given on the 14th of the succeeding month. In the Historical and Prophetical Books.—1. The Prophetical Writings.—Outside the Hexateuch there is no explicit mention of the observance of a Passover until after the discovery of Dt(B.c. 621).

For the time of the earlier kings, indeed, none of the feasts are explicitly mentioned except Taber- nacles ; but others together with the Passover may be included in such general statements regarding feasts as we find, ¢.g. Hos 24 9°, Am 5” 8, an Is 29! (‘add year to year: let the feasts come round’). Some (Nowack, Arch. ii. Ρ. 149) find an almost certain reference in Hos 12° 00) “1 will yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the solemn (i.e. fixed) feast.

’ And this is more probable than that the reference is to Tabernacles (Wellh. Die kl. Propheten?, p. 126 f., excludes this ge from Hosea. He does not think it suits the threat there expressed ; cf. Nowack, Arch. ii. 155, 2). In Is 30” the allusion to the Passover was formerly considered (Dill. Del. δέ ad.) to be beyond question, but at present it is thought by many others to refer to the night preceding the New Year’s feast (see art. TIME; cf. Duhm, Com. p. 203 ; Budde, ZA W, 1891, p. 200). 2.

The Historical Writings (pre-exilic). — Here we find our first reference in 2 Καὶ 23° ‘And the king commanded all the pearls, saying, Keep the Passover unto J” your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant. Surely there was not kept such a Passover from the days of the jade. that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of srael, nor of the kings of Judah; but in the eighteenth (cf. 22%) year of king Josiah was this Passover kept to J” in Jerusalem.

’ There seems little doubt that this celebration under Josiah was novel, above all else, in following the law in Dt 16, and thus being celebrated at the central sanctu- . Such a fact would give ample reason for the extraordinary character assigned to it. The extreme brevity of the notice may be due to later curtailment (cf. Benzinger, ‘Kénige,’ in Kurzer Handcom. 194ff.) This is the only ce pn reference to a Passover before the Exile. There are, to be sure, notices in 2 Ch (8% (ἢ) 30.

35) of Passovers during this time, but these very probably reflect the usages of the writer’s own age, and cannot be classed along with the passage in 2 Κα, The most that can be πα τισι from them is that the Chronicler may have found in his sources mention of Passovers on the occasions where he gives his fuller descriptions. 3. The Historical Writings (post-exilic).—In Ezr 6 ® (in Heb.) we have an account of how the returned exiles celebrated the feast.

The Levites killed the lambs at this time, not only for them- * On meaning, herbs used, etc., cf. Dill.-Rys. Com. Ex, p. 1171; Nowack, Arch. il. p. 178, ἢ. 4; and Tract Pesachim, Dr. ἡ, M. Patton, in conversation, expressed it as his opinion that the herbs represented an original vegetable offering the pastures of the herds. PASSOVER selves, but for the priests and the rest of the com- munity as well. This is also made to be the case, in part at least,in2Ch. There in ch.

30 is a de- scription of a Passover in Hezekiah’s reign. For this the king sends out an especial summons (v.?) ; and since they could not arrange for it in the first month it is held in the second (Nu 9), as is also the feast of mazzéth (v.%). It is explained that it is because some were not purified according to the law, that the Levites kill the lambs for them (v.27, but cf. ν.}8). The priests receive the blood from the Levites and sprinkle it on the altar.

An exception is made to the usual requirements, and all present are allowed to eat the Passover, although not purified according to the law. The following feast of seven days is extended yet another seven; and we are told that since Solo- mon’s time such a festival had not been held in Jerusalem (v.**). 2Ch 35! gives an extended description of the same Passover under Josiah, mentioned in 2 K 23. In this instance the impli- cation seems to be that the Levites kill the lambs for all (v.°).

The priests receive the blood and sprinkle it on the altar (v.") as before, and as was usual in the case of other sacrifices. The Levites skinned the lambs, and apparently the other sacri- ficial animals as well (vv."-1*%). Here the writer tel's us that since the days of Samuel the prophet no Passover like to this one had been kept. This same account with modifications is reproduced in the opening chapter of 1 Es. (For a comparison of the text of 2 Ch with the Greek of 1 Es see ZAW, 1899, p.

234 ff.) C. Résumé.—We have thus in our OT Canon notices that take us down to the Greek era, and range back over documents falling within a period of some six centuries. For the earlier ones there are only the briefest notices, which do not justify many deductions, even if cpu ac in their present form. But it is extremely probable that our feast continued to be observed during all this time in the Southern, even if not so generally in the Northern kingdom.

Many of the rites mentioned by the later writers were certainly of very ancient origin. In Dt, in the last quarter of the 7th cent., we get on undisputed ground. In this first extended account, the strong emphasis on the historical significance of the Passover is especially marked. It commemorates the emancipation from Egypt, the day of the nation’s birth.

The domestic character, which it eee possessed originally, disappears, but not the individual idea, which is so far retained that we still have separate sacri- fices. There continues to be room for much of the spontaneity and joyousness that belong to a volun- tary celebration. At this time it would seem it either stood by itself or introduced the magzgéth feast as later.—We find our next notices after a half century in the ideal portrayal of Ezekiel.

Here the memorial significance gives ἫΝ to the piacular conception which grows out of Ezekiel’s exalted view of J”s holiness, The individual element disappears in the collective idea of the nation. Thus it comes that the Passover loses its distinctive character, and is taken up and em- bodied in the general class of sacrifices. It is accurately dated so as to fit into his scheme of the sacred year.

All this falls within Ezekiel’s vision of Israel’s future restoration, and so his notice serves to emphasize the importance of the Passover in the religious life of the people. From a his- torical point of view, the account is not so much valuable in itself as it is in marking the transition from Dt to the priestly document. During the Exile the Passover was probably one of the few observances still ἘΣΣΙ Ἐς to the Jews, and must have greatly aided in keeping alive religious faith and hope.

The memory of 688 PASSOVER the deeds once done for the fathers would become the ground of assurance of that inevitable future when Js promise to His chosen people would be realized. The commemorative side would be thus developed, the more so as any connexion with the sacrificial cultus was, of course, impossible. Justas in later days, after the destruction of the temple, so now they would love to linger long, on this night, recalling the past and thinking of the future.

The fact that in P the Passover is seen to be in its essential nature a sacrifice, and yet is so unlike all other sacrifices, may be due in large measure to the development and strengthening of the domestic and historical features during this period. We might then understand in part the departure from the view of the Deuteronomist. Undoubtedly, the Passover assumes a new prominence in P.

In many points there is a close connexion with Ezekiel, but there is greater amplification and much that differs. Not only is the day definitely fixed, but all the minute details of 7 ea are added. With this writer, further, it is not merely a memorial, but it was instituted beforehand as a means of accomplishing deliverance, and thus gains a deeper historical meaning. It is in the first instance the saving deed itself (cf. Wellh. Proleg.* p. 100).

—The Chronicler gives us our last notices in the Canon. By him the priestly legis- lation is usually followed, as it is throughout the norm of post-exilic worship; but in the case of the Passover a striking preference is given to the ordinances of Dt. The sacrificial character again comes into prominence, possibly under the growing influence of worship in one sanctuary. ii. ORIGIN AND PRIMITIVE SIGNIFICANCE.

— Whatever differences there may be in our OT records as to the manner of observing the Pass- over, we have seen that it is uniformly associated with and commemorative of the deliverance from Egypt. Of its meaning to the Israel of historic time there can be no question. But do we thus arrive at the real explanation of its origin and primi- tive significance? Our accounts in their present form are, of course, an inadequate explanation for the institution of an entirely new feast.

So much is mentioned as well understood that we see it must have been firmly rooted in the national life when the writers lived.

In view of this fact; in view of the many features which seem to point to something behind the interpretation given to them ; in view of what we find in the observances of related peoples, so far as these are known to us ; and in view of the development in the case of all the other great feasts, and the historical interpre- tation which came to be given them,—it is probable that we have here another instance in which Israel’s religion takes up, transforms, and appropriates an existing institution.

We might expect to find some starting-point for conjecture in the name Passover, but it proves of little aid. ° 1. Name.—nos, J.-Aram. καρ, Syr. Lu, and hence πάσχα (2 Ch, Jer 38 (31)® φασέκ ; Jos. several times φάσκα. Later derivatives πασχάζω, πασχάλιος, πασχαλικοί). The root ποθ" appears in what are usually regarded as two distinct verbs: (1) ‘to ag over ’ in sense of sparing, with the prepos. Sy x 123-3-2%, and without Is 315, cf. nppa 1K 54; (2) ‘to be lame,’ ‘to limp’ (cf. tw!

δ᾽, vc), 1K C 18", Pi. 18% (‘ dance’ ἢ, Niph. 2 5 44, For the first, from which the noun Passover is derived, there is no means of gaining a primitive meaning (so Wellh., Benzinger, ef al.) It is undoubtedly an y old word. In Syriac we? means to be joyous, * Ewald would trace to root 05 Salvere, and from this derive other meanings PASSOVER which might give the idea of festal rejoicing, and this would be the most we could inter as to a primal conception.

The name Passover is used in a twofold way, (a) of the feast, (δ) of the sacrifice at that time (in 2 Ch we meet the plural ποθ). It is made the object of various verbs. So of ποὺ ‘to keep the feast of the Passover’ (e.g. Ex 12), ony ‘to kill the Passover’ (e.g. Ex 127); nar ‘to sacrifice the Passover’ (e.g. Dt 16%); wxa ὑφ ‘to roast the Passover’ (2 Ch 351%); Sax ‘to eat the Passover’ (6.5. Ex 12*). (On nopa an cf. above, i A.l chp 2. Older Views.

—From the many conjectures regarding the pre- Mosaic Passover there are several which do not commend themselves at present sufliciently to warrant more than a brief mention. George (Die Jiid. Feste, p. 239) starts from the root no> and makes it a commemorative feast of the passage of the Red Sea.

Redslob (Hamburger Gymnasial Programm, 1856) regarded it as a shepherd’s festival celebrated in the pas- tures on the night before the Exodus (‘ Ein in der Nacht vor dem Auszug der Hirten auf die Triften gefeiertes Hutfest’). Von Bohlen (Gen. p. 140 ff.) and Vatke (Bibl. Theol. i. p. 492ff.) make it the celebration of the entrance of the sun inte the zodi- acal sign Aries, and so many others have connected it with the spring. (See Kalisch, Hz, p. 184ff.; Dill.-Rys. Ex, p. 120ff.)

There have been from time to time views connecting the early rite with human sacrifice (cf. Kalisch, d.c. 186 ff.) 3. Offering of the Firstborn.—This is the view at present most widely accepted, and perhaps best set forth by Wellhausen in the chapter of his Pro- legomena dealing with the whole question of the feasts (4th ed. pp. 82-117; cf. also p. 358 f.)

* This holds that, in the main, the Passover was the sacrifice of the firstborn, The simple and naturat meaning and occasion of the feasts is to be found in the statement of Gn 47> ‘And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lorp. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock.

’ The Pass- over is the shepherd’s offering, given in thankful recognition that the fruitfulness of the herd is from J”. That the firstborn belong to J” is a primitive ordinance, and it is pointed out that in our present accounts such an offering is closely connected with the Passover (Ex 13" ‘Thou shalt set apart unto the Lorp all that openeth the womb. the males shall be the Lorp’s,’ Dt 151**- 16).

This custom, it is said, can alone explain the remarkable choice made by the plague in smiting the firstborn. Because Pharaoh prevents the bringing of this offering which is due, J” takes the firstborn of the Egyptians. The oft-repeated demand is to let the people go to keep a feast in the wilderness with cattle and sheep (Ex 3% 715 87 et passim). For this purpose they borrow the ornaments from the Egyptians.

Thus in reality the feast was the occasion of the Exodus, if only the ostensible one, and not the Exodus of the feast, as would appear from the accounts in Dt and Ex 13. (For Ex 131-16 is held by Well- hausen to belomg in its present form to a Deutero- nomic editing). And he concludes that, while a slight inclination to assign a historical motive to the Passover may possibly be traced earlier, this first actually occurs in Dt.

This is apparently due to the fact that in the older fenced the feast explains the occasion and time of the Exodus. Then comes the change that the slaying of the Egyptians is the reason for offering the firstborn ; * Of. also in this connexion J. Miiller, Kritischer Versuch tiber den Ursprung und die geschichtliche Entwicklung dea Pesach- und Mazzothfestes, Bonn, 1884. PASSOVER and the time is in the spring, because the Exodus took place then.

Then in P comes the further change that the connexion of the Passover with the sacrifice of the firstborn is lost to view. It is no longer based on the fact that J” slew the firstborn of the Egyptians, but it was instituted before the Exodus, that He might spare the firstborn of Israel. 4. A Feast of Atonement.—Another line of con- jecture starts from the Piscules ritual appearing in both the accounts of Ex 12. We have seen that the second section there (vv.

“-*’) deals almost exclusively with the blood ceremonial. 5 46h Baur (Tiibinger Ztschr. f. Theol. 1832, p. 40 ff.) connects the feast with that celebrated in India, Persia, Asia Minor, and Egypt at the time of the vernal equinox. The Passover sacrifice is offered in place of the firstborn of men, and is thus essen- tially a sacrifice of atonement. Cf. yaya in Ex 134 (JE) with the use of the same word in connexion with the rite of Molech in such passages as Ly 18”, 2K 23”, Jer 32%.

Dillmann in his Com. on Ex and Ly (p. 636 and οἵ. 121, ed. by Ryssel, Leipzig, 1897) regards the Passover as an offering of recon- ciliation and purification, introducing the equi- noctial festival. The connexion with the Exodus came from the fact that Israel left Egypt at this season. Contiguity in time also explains the later association with mazzéth. In the same way Ewald (Antiquities of Israel, p. 352ff.)

affirms—‘from the earliest times an atonement offering was an indispensable con- stituent of every Spring festival.

’ It comes at a time when there is serious reflexion and anxious care for the unknown future, and so man felt himself impelled to offer ‘sacrifices of purification and reconciliation, not alone on account of par- ticular transgressions of which he knew himself to be guilty, but also to secure the Divine ex- emption and grace generally on the occasion of this uncertain transition, so that, as it were, if, during the new year, his god were to visit him and call him to account, he might not slay him, as he perhaps deserved, but might graciously pass him over.

’ The lamb was accordingly ‘unmis- takably an expiatory offering,’ and the streaking of the doorway with blood was ‘to make atone- ment for the whole house and all who were con- tained therein celebrating the festival.’ Schultz in his OT Theol. (Eng. tr. i. p. 364) presents much the same view, although he admits the possibility that it ‘may originally have been the feast of the firstlings of the cattle. 5. A Blood Covenant.—In the OT Theol.

of Kayser-Marti we find a somewhat different pre- sentation. Here (2nd ed., Strassburg, 1894, p 37f.) it is maintained that originally the Passover was unconnected with the Spring or the First- born, but was rather a celebration by means of which one secured his house from all harm in times of pestilence. This was effected by the blood ceremonial which brought one into the closest relations with his divinity, and so, as he believed, secured him from all danger.

The application of blood to the doorway suggests that the house divinities (Hausgétter) who dwelt there are possibly the ones whose protection was sought. * ἘΠῚ é Trumbull (The Threshold Covenant, p. 2031f.) holds that the Passover goes back to a rite, which he seeks to trace among many peoples, of a cove- blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining the doorway itself with the blood of the covenant.

The Passover sacrifice was, then, the threshold * One 1s reminded in this connexion of the poem in the Bk. of Jubilees (49!5)—' And no plague shall come upon them in this year (¢.¢. any year) to kill and destroy then, if they | observe the Passover at its season according to its ordinance’ (οἵ. further, Ex 59). VOL. Ill. —44 PASSOVER cross-over sacrifice which marked the welcome of J” to the household.

The idea was familiar, and so needed no explanation when commanded for the night of the deliverance (Ex 12). He would translate ‘threshold’ (η0) rather than ‘basin’ in Ex 12, as is done in the LXX and Vulg. (cf. op. citat. p. 206ff.) The sacrifice killed is one of welcome, and J” honours this by covenanting with those who proffer it; where He is not so welcomed, His executioner enters.

The firstborn of the Hepa are taken, since it was a common thought of primitive peoples ‘ that the first-fruits of life in any sphere belonged of right to God or the gods,’ and so His taking them is evidence that the gods of Egypt could not protect them. The Egyptian Passover was in the eyes of the people the rite of marriage between J” and Israel. The ‘stamp of the red hand of the bridegroom is the certifica- tion of the covenant union, at the doorway of the family.

’ But since here Israel is the virgin, the hyssop (Ex 12”), i.e. the tree or bush as a feminine symbol, is used for this purpose. In his earlier work, The Blood Covenant, Trumbull suggests that in the rite of circumcision it was Abraham and his descendants who supplied the blood of the covenant, while in the Pasaaves sacrifice it was the Lord who commanded the substitute blood in token of His blood-covenanting (p. 351, ef. 230 11}. 6. Conclusion.

—In the Passover we probably have one of Israel’s oldest feasts. It is the only one represented in the OT as established before the Exodus. The only other occasion that could at all be compared to it in the matter of age would be the feast at sheep-shearing (1 S 25%, 2S 13; cf. H. P. Smith’s Com. in loco). Both point to the nomad stage of development, and may well date from those early days. All expositors, whatever their lines of conjecture, agree in recog- nizing this.

Many of the writers cited above Ὁ not advance their views to the exclusion of all others, although that is true of some, but rather as setting forth that which they think was of central significance in the primitive Passover.

In valuing any of these theories we must always dis- tinguish between the facts at the foundation and the brilliant reconstruction that imagination has built upon them, and by so doing we shall prob- ably conclude that it is extremely hazardous to attempt anything like a complete picture of the primitive Passover.

For the Passover of historic times this result will doubtless be ultimately so far attained that there will be general agreement ; but for the earlier age we must be content to note the separate features which the existing material reserves to us, and to recognize them as such. We shall probably in this way 3) erase more nearly to the truth.

For it would not be strange if the Passover which we know, combined in itself features belonging to an original feast of much larger proportions, or rather if it had taken up into itself in the course of time various features from what were in reality different festivals. As within the period covered by our records we find modifications coming in from time to time, so it undoubtedly was earlier, although not with the same rapidity or to the same extent.

In this way it is quite possible that certain particulars, which now receive little notice more than the mere mention, at one time had a much greater importance. Recalling what seem to _ the most important features of this primitive festival, we may note—(a) the time of its celebration, namely, the vernal equinox. This is not unim- portant or accidental.

It suggests a connexion with the changing seasons, and affords a legitimate } nant welcome given to a guest, or to a bride or | bridegroom in marriage, ‘by the mae iat of He cites the custom of modern Jews of opening the outer door at a certain stage of the feast, and placing ap extra cup and chair. 690 PASSOVER PASSOVER basis for those hypotheses cited above, which give especial recognition to this feature.

The fact that so many other peoples celebrate this occasion lends credibility to such a view. Of course, however, we cannot be certain that we do not have here a feature of lesser antiquity than some one of the others. The further observance at the middle of the month and at night, indicates an almost certain connexion with the full moon. Later on, in Israel and outside, the new moon was apparently much more regarded, but not to the entire exclusion of the full moon (Dill.-Ryssel on Ly, p.

632 ff.) (6) In the older days a feast seems always to have meant a sacrifice. And we have found both these conceptions embodied in the Passover, the festal side being very evident, and the sacri- ficial hardly less so. The fact that it does not conform in its details to any one of the later classes of Levitical sacrifices, cannot be made an objection to such a view. For here we go back to a time when all such requirements were as yet undeveloped.

All the later treatment of the Passover, as well as most of the terms applied to it (cf. above), indicate throughout such a concep- tion of its significance. (c) As a sacrifice, the piacular side stands out in the present accounts with especial prominence. For the blood ceremonial (cf. Ex 12) can hardly have any other meaning. In it a practice from the early tribal life seems to be preserved to us.

We see that blood had much the same significance in worship in the case of Israel as was given to it by other peoples. Developments of this same conception could then be found in the many later rites of blood: the pouring, the sprinkling, and the staining. Trumbull’s books greatly help one to see how this could come about. At the same time, as a sacrifice the Passover has another side, no less important and no less primitive (cf. RS p. 239 et passim).

It ranks with the shélamim or peace-offerings, where the common meal is central, as the means of establishing or renewing the covenant with God and with one another. We have seen how P gave marked emphasis to this sacramental side. And this cannot be made to conflict with the previous aspect or to exclude it. The fact that the sin-offering of later times could not be used for such a meal, cannot be made & norm for practice at this early stage.

Rather one could urge, as some do, the probability that in the case of all sacrifices the blood then found some such application. And in saying this we must remember that it Li no means implies that the words atonement and reconciliation need to have the same serious content that a later age gave to them. Originally offered as all other sacrifices, we should expect no other priest than the head of the family.

_ (d) If we keep within the bounds of our records, it can hardly be denied that the sacrifices at this feast were for the most part, if not entirely, the Jirstborn. Such an offering is mentioned in the oldest portions of the law, and is closely associated with those passages dealing with the Passover. In view of the previous discussion, we need at present merely mention this aspect (ef. ii. 3).

(e) It seems, furthermore, to be an undoubted part of the old tradition, that the Exodus was closely connected with the observance of this ancient feast. In the case of P there is, to be sure, a demand for ete release, but otherwise there is no indication that the Israelites gave any hint of their intention not to return. The demand which Moses and Aaron repeatedly urge upon Pharaoh is—‘ Thus saith J” the God of Israel, ἜΣ my ecnle Ὁ, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness . .

let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacri- fice unto J” our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with sword’ (Ex 5'8), With young and old, with its sons and its daughters, with its flocks and its herds, Israel seeks to go forth into the Sinaitic peninsula to hold a feast unto the Lord (Ex 10°). That they should ask to do so, does not apparently seem a strange or unintelligible demand to the king.

Possibly because such religious pil- srimages, which were a frequent occurrence with ater Semitic peoples, were not unusual in those earlier times (cf. Dillmann, Hz. p. 46 f.) Such a feast as this need not, of course, be the Passover; much less the ΡΟ νοῦ. of the later mazzith (so Dill. in loc. p. 636). But that it stood in close relation to the Passover and the sacrifice of the firstborn, seems an almost necessary con- clusion from the OT accounts.

Such are the features which the Passover seems to include within itself. But to give the name Passover especial application to any particular one of them in this early time does not seem warranted, for we have no means of judging of its age or mean- ing. It may have belonged origin: μὰ to some particular part, or may have been the designation of the entire feast or series of feasts.

In any case it has come to stand for a most important recur- ring occasion in the early nomad life of Israel, one that was possibly then what the feast of Taber- nacles was for the early agricultural life—the Feast. The very fact that it survived the many changes attending the passing from this nomad to the agricultural stage, as well as later changes hardly less revolutionary, points to something deeply rooted in the popular life and tradition.

From first to last it keeps this character of a people’s feast, and reforms which failed to recognize this feature could not be ultimately successful. Such a celebration could well be the occasion of the Exodus, and this supposition affords adequate explanation for the subsequent traditions. That the old character should become merged in the memorial significance, was to be expected in the face of the new life and institutions.

Contiguity in time seems the best explanation for its associa- tion with mazzéth, which always remains really distinct. iii. THE PosT-EXxILIc PASSOVER.—1l. Manner of Observance.—The practice subsequent to the return from captivity, as we have seen in 2Ch and Ezra, conformed more closely to Dt than to P. This is borne out by the extra-canonical sources (esp. Tract Pesachim, Josephus, Bk. of Jubilees).

Many details in Ex 12 were interpreted as intended only for the Egyptian Passover (psd nodD) as over against the permanent Passover, which future generations were to observe (md nod or pwri nop as distinguished from the second or little Passover ‘uw nop).

Such features were (a) the selection of the lamb on the 10th day ; (6) the slaughter at the home; (6) the sprinkling of blood on the doorposts ; (d) the admission of those who might be Levitically impure ; (e) the haste indicated in dress and manner of eating (i.e. standing); (f) lodging where the feast was held. These were assigned to the feast of preparation, but not intended to be perpetuated in the feast of commemoration.

It is to be noted that the priestly writer does not expressly enjoin these features save for the first Passover, but the whole tenor of his narrative indicates that the were undoubtedly given for all time. The Samari- tans so continue to understand them. It is only among them that there is still an attempt to ob- serve the Passover with actual sacrifice as in earlier days (cf. the account in Baedeker’s Palestine and Syria ; Trumbull’s Studies in Oriental Social Life, p. 371 ff.

; Thomson in Expos. Times, xi. (1900) 377). Preparation for the Passover really began at the middle of the preceding month (Adar). ads and PASSOVER bridges were repaired, sepulchres were whitened anew, that they cp fe be readily seen and avoided. It was the season of ceremonial and all other kinds of purifications. In the last days the household utensils were all carefully cleaned.

The Sabbath preceding the 14th of Nisan came to be known in the modern synagogue as the Great Sabbath (naw bran), because it was held that the 10th, when the lamb was selected in the first instance, fell on a Sabbath. There seems to be no evidence, however, that this view was in existence at the beginning of the Christian era. On the evening of the 13th the head of the family searched the house with a lighted candle, that he might seek out all the leaven.

The hour on the 14th at which one must refrain from eating leavened cakes was variously fixed. It was always before noon, however, the precise time being indicated by the disappearance of two cakes which were ex- posed before the temple. When the signal was thus given, all leaven must be burned or scattered to the winds. Under the head of leaven the Mishna (Pesach. 2-5) includes cakes made from wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye.

If bread be made from any of these grains, it must be before the dough ferments at all. Work ceased on the morning, or at noon, of the l4th, save in a few occupations (tailors, barbers, laundresses). ΑἹ] able-bodied males, not ceremonially impure, within a radius of 15 miles were required to appear this day before the LorpD at His sanctuary with an offering. Women were not required to attend, but apparently did so* (Jos. BJ vi. ix. 3; Pesach. 1x.

4) The regular evening sacrifice was killed and offered an hour earlier than usual (i.e. at 1.30 and 2.30 respectively) in order to give opportunity for sacrificing the Passover. When the 14th fell ona Sunday the evening sacrifice came two hours earlier (12.30 and 1.30). The time of the Passover sacri- fice is defined in the Law as ‘between the two evenings’ (o:39u7 13 Ex 12°, Lv 235, Nu 95.

5-3), This was interpreted by the Pharisees and Talmudists to mean from the hour of the sun’s decline until its setting; and this was the later temple practice (cf. Pesach. ν. 1; Jubilees, 49; Jos. BJ Vi. ix. 3). The Samaritans, Karaites, and Sad- ducees, on the other hand, held that the period between sunset and dark was intended.

Companies, which could consist of from 10 to 20 persons, were organized indiscriminately, and not of a man and his neighbour (Ex 12*) ; the number in each instance to be definitely fixed in advance. At the appointed hour the representatives of these various groups, each provided with a lamb not less than eight days old nor more than a year, were divided into three divisions. These were admitted successively to the temple court.

The priests blew a threefold blast trom the silver trumpets, and thereupon each Israelite in the divi- sion just admitted killed his lamb. The blood was caught by the priests, who stood in two rows, one row having gold and the other silver bowls. These bowls were then passed along from hand to hand, and the priest nearest the altar dashed the contents on its base.

The lambs were hung on nails, or from staves resting upon the shoulders of two men (not allowed when the day was a Sabbath), and dressed. The fat was removed, and offered by the priests on the altar. While all this was taking place, the Levites sang the Hallel (Ps 113-118); and this they repeated, or sang even a third time, if the division had not meantime finished its sacri- fice. This same order was followed in the case of each division.

The lambs were then taken to the homes outside and roasted whole on a wooden spit, pomegranate * The Karaites do not admit them, PASSOVER 691 wood being used, that no sap exude. No bone was allowed to be broken under penalty of scourging, and the flesh must not come in contact with any foreign substance: should this happen, the portion must be cut away. Nothing was eaten after the evening sacrifice until the Passover meal. This must close at midnight.

The participants were clad in their best garments. Though not enjoined in the Law, wine came to be regarded as an indis- pensable part of the feast. Each one must be pro- vided with at least four cups of red wine, even if the money had to come from the fund for public charity, or was raised by the pledging of one’s gar- ments, or by his labour. Another dish, which later seems to have been usual but which was not obliga- tory, was the hardgeth (nonn).

It consisted of bruised fruits, such as dates and raisins, mingled with vinegar (a symbol, it was said, of the clay from which the bricks were made in Egypt). ‘The real meal, however, had for its elements (a) the bitter herbs, of which the Mishna specifies five varieties ; (4) the unleavened cakes ; (c) the hagigah (a23n) or free-will festal offering; (d) the Passover lamb.

The supper was i pare with the blessing, pro- nounced by the head of the company over the first enp of wine, which was then drunk. Then came a hand-washing and an accompanying prayer. Then the bitter herbs, dipped in the hardseth, were handed round. After the pouring of the second cup of wine came the question of the son, or of one speaking for him, as to the significance of the feast (Ex 12%). Following the father’s ex- planation came the first part of the Hallel (Ps 113 and 114.

After the third cup grace after meals was said, and after the fourth followed the completion of the Hallel (Ps 115-118). In earlier times nothing was eaten after the paschal lamb, but a later custom permitted a piece of unleavened ἘΕΙΓΘ ΚΕ ΘΕ ΘΕ ΕΓ ΡΕ ΘΗ, There were slight modi- fications for the observance of the second on the 14th of the following month.

With the destruction of the temple and the cessation of the sacrificial cultus there naturally came a considerable change in the mode of cele- bration. This was partly in the direction of amplification. The historical significance was em- phasized, and an elaborate ritual took shape, cf. the paschal Haggada, portions of which are as late as the 15th cent. A.D. (Hamburger, Supplement to Real-Encyc. p. 113).

Much the same general order was observed and much the same articles of food were used, except that for the temple sacrifices the roasted shankbone of a lamb and a roasted egg were employed. 2. Number of participants.—The number of those who attended the feast at Jerusalem was undoubtedly great, even if Josephus’ use of figures makes us somewhat sceptical of his estimates. At one time, under Nero, he makes the probable num- ber over two and a half millions, and on another occasion (A.D.

65) three millions (BJ VI. ix. 3, 11. xiv. 3). It was at such times that Rome took especial measures to guard inst insurrections (Ant. xvii. ix. 3, Xx. v. 3; cf. Mt 26°). It may be that there were both executions and pardons on these occasions; both aimed at the restraint of the multitude (cf. Mt 274). The city could not accom- modate all the visitors, and so they camped outside in tents or lodged in neighbouring villages.

Guests were freely entertained, but left the skins of the lambs and the utensils used at the feast with their respective hosts (Mishna, Yoma xii. 1). 3. The Date.—The day of the celebration was determined by the condition of the harvest. If this did not promise in the 12th month to be ready to be gathered in four weeks, and the animals were not yet grown sufficiently for sacrifice, then the month was declared intercalary, and a thirteenth assover 692 PASTOR was added.

This question was settled by the Sanhedrin, and there were certain regulations laid down to guide their decision. The opening of the month of Nisan was also proclaimed by them. This took lace when messengers came who had actually seen the new moon (see art. NEW Moon). It was not till about the time of Christ that there came to be a fixed calendar. Fires on the hill-tops sent the signal through the land that the Passover month had begun.

After the Samaritans made use of such fires to mislead the Jews, it was ordered that messengers should the news throughout the country. The difficulty of fixing this date, and of informing those who were remote when it had been done, led to the doubling of important festal days for those in the ery ae (On question of date cf. Mishna, Rosh hashshana ii. if; Ideler, Chronol. pp. 491 ff. and 508 ff. ; Schiirer, GJV i. 625 (HP 1. ii. 370 1.1).

The question of the number of passovers trace- able during our Lord’s ministry, as well as that of the relation of the Last Supper to the Passover, are discussed in art. CHRONOLOGY OF NT, vol. i. p. 406 tf. ; cf. Jesus CHRIST, vol. ii. p. 633 f. LrrzraTurs.—1. Commentaries on Pent., etc., esp. Dillmannon Ex and rien by Ryssel, Leipzig, 1897); Driver on Dt (Internat, Crit. Com.); Bertholet on Dt (Kurzer Hdcom. 1899), and on Ezk (id. 1897); Steuernagel on Dt (Nowack’s Hdkom. 1898). 2.

Archwologies, esp. Nowack (Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894) ; Benzinger (id. 1894); Ewald, Antiquities of I. (tr. by H. 8. Solly, London and Boston, 1876). 8. Histories of Religion.—J. Miller, Kritischer Versuch tlber den Ursprung und die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Pesach- und Mazzothfestes (Inaugural dissertation, Bonn, 1884); Well- hausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte lsraels4 (Berlin, 1895) ; Green, The Hebrew Feasts (New York, 1886); J.

Robertson, The Early sie here of Israel (London, Edinburgh, and New York, 1892); Schultz, ΟΤ' Theol. (Eng. tr., Edin., T. ἃ T. Clark, 1892); Kayser, OT Theol. (ed. by Karl Marti, Strassburg, 1894). 4. General.—H. OC. Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant (N.Y. 1896), and The Blood Cov. (Phil. 1893); W. R. Smith, RS; Wellhausen, Reste Arab. Heidentums? (Berlin, 1897). For older literature see citations in Winer’s Realwoérterbuch * Passah,’ and works given by Dill.-Rys. Com.

on Ex, and at close of Orelli’s article ‘ Passah,’ in Herzog’s 5. Literature for xilic period. —Various tracts of the Mishna, esp. Pesachim; the Paschal agua ( rding this cf. Hamburger, Sal pega to RE); Book of Jubilees, ch. 49 ; Josephus (see Index); Philo, Vita Mos.; Edersheim, The Temple, its Ministry and Services as they were at the Time of Jesus Christ (London, 1874). See also artt. on the Passover by W. R. Smith in Enc. Brit.

9; see D in Kitto's er ; Delitzsch in Riehm’s Handworter- buch ; Hamburger in RE (Jewish). W.J. MOULTON. under , 112 ff. ;