our subject. It has become customary, among the very many and remarkable coincidences of the Persian and German languages, to adduce also the name of God; which in German is Gott, in modern Persian choda. What words could sound more alike? But how many difficulties present themselves against the comparison, when we look closer at either the German or Persian appellation? The modern Persian has its immediate source in the Zend. In the Zend language, God is called kuadâta, i. e. 'a se datus,' compounded of kua and data; in Sanscrit svayamdata, i. e. the originator of his own existence.' If now choda is thus only a contraction of two words, if the verb to give is thus contained in it, who can think of comparing it with the German Gott? although at first view the analogy seems to be very close.2

In respect now to the comparison of Jehovah or Jahaveh or Jahvoh, (for we will here nota ttempt to decide on the original vowels,) with the Latin Jovis, or, to go back to the ultimate root, with the Sanscrit devas, it has been customary, in order to bring them into nearer juxtaposition, to adopt the Greek orthography, as it has been transmitted to us by Diodorus and Theodoret, viz. 'la. In this however the guttural sound is wanting; because the Greeks do not in general express nor even in their orthography. But this must not be overlooked. If it was not extant in the Indian, Persian, nor Greek, how came the Hebrews to insert it? This alone is sufficient to deter us from such a comparison of the two words. To this we may add, that the, as derived from the root, has in Hebrew

1 So all, from Salmasius onward, who have touched upon the affinity of the Persian and German, as Le Pileux, Murray, von Hammer; also Dorn, who has recently treated of this affinity in the most accurate manner, in his work Ueber die Verwandtschaft des Persichen and Germanischen Sprachstamms, Hamb. 1827. p. 170.-Kanne also very naturally brings together Gott and choda. But from what he (Kanne) tells us about these names, in his book: Erste Urkunde der Geschichte, p. 579 sq. we learn also many other things, viz. 1) That the name Jehovah is really the same with the Coptic Io, i. e. Moongoddess, Moon-cow; 2) That the Berlin mode of pronouncing Yott for Gott, may lay claim to a high antiquity; since the word Gott is the letter Iota; 3) That the name Jehovah was originally ; which however, as is well known, is merely the rabbinic abbreviation.

T:

2 Comp. Burnouf, Extrait d'un Commentaire etc. in Nouv. Journal Asiatique, 1829, T. III. p. 344 sq.

a form belonging to the analogy of proper names, and also an entirely appropriate meaning. If we point it as most do,

it is a noun after the analogy of p, and signifies the immutable. Besides all this, the question might still be raised, whether in the ancient Hebrew language, perhaps as early as the time of Abraham, (on the supposition that the passage in Ex. 6: 3 does not refer to a later introduction of the name,) we are at liberty to assume such an abrasion of the d at the beginning of the word; while the less ancient Greek, and even the Latin in its Deus and Diespiter, have faithfully preserved it.

In general, in the comparison of Hebrew words with foreign ones, we must, I think, hold fast to the following principle: If a Hebrew name is regularly derived from a Hebrew root, so that it is obviously only the abstract idea of the verb expressed as a noun, and arises from the verb as the stem from the root; there is nothing gained by merely comparing it with a like-sounding word of another language, so long as the ultimate verbal roots are not shewn to be related to each other. Thus the substantives and contracted from certainly resemble in sound the German Mensch (mennisko), Sanscrit manuscha. But if now the Sanscrit word, and probably the German also, falls back upon the verbal root man, to think, to be strong;' while the Hebrew comes from, to be weak;' the comparison must remain untenable, so long as it is not shown that there is some affinity between these verbs. I have dwelt more on this point in another place.1

6

Thus then we have endeavoured to show, that at least the attempts hitherto made to give to the Hebrew name of God a derivation different from that which the earliest Hebrew records themselves present, viz. from the verb, are untenable. We leave it to other inquirers, as Von Meyer and Sack, who have written on the signification of the divine names, to investigate the form and signification of the word in question, from the Hebrew. We subjoin a single remark. When De Wette says:2 "A name so abstract as this would be, if derived from, is inappropriate for the national name of a God ;" and when other recent theologians, following De Wette, likewise find the name too abstract for those early ages, this all rests merely on an hypothesis, which is false in a twofold respect. First, that Je

1 Beiträge zur Spracherklärung des N. T. p. 66 sq. 2 Beiträge, Th. II. p. 182.

hovah was only the national God; compare what Von Cölln has brought forward against this hypothesis. Secondly, it is assumed, that in the infancy of nations, rudeness alone is the characteristic of their knowledge, of their ideas, and of their language! To this we'reply, in the words of Wagner: 2 "The hypothesis of an aboriginal rudeness, which raised itself by degrees to a state of cultivated reason, stands in contradiction to the religious origin of mankind,-an origin announced by the prevalence and preponderance of the intellectual principle, as well as by the invention of language, of writing, of profound astronomical calculations, etc."-What can these critics, moreover, say to the fact, that in the Zendavesta the name of God, as we have seen, is, He who has produced himself;' and to this corresponds, in Sanscrit, the oft repeated name of God, svayambhu, 'the self-existing.' If now in these troubled channels of primeval revelation, a conception so abstract and so spiritual of the divine Being has been able to maintain itself; how can the possibility of it be denied in that purer stream of divine communications, which flows throughout the Hebrew theocracy?

ART. IV. ON THE TIME OF OUR LORD'S LAST PASSOVER
AND CRUCIFIXION.

By J. H. Rauch, Pastor at Alkersleben in Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen. Translated from the German by the Editor.*

It is well known that, among modern interpreters, there reigns great uncertainty and confusion in regard to the exact chronology of this section of the gospel history. It is even asserted,

1 In his dissertation: Ueber die Theokratie, in Wachler's Philomatie, Th. III. p. 215 sq.

2 Germ. translation of Murray, p. 7.

* From the "Theol. Studien u. Kritiken," 1832. 3tes Heft.

that the evangelists themselves do not harmonize in their accounts. Yet among the ancient teachers of the church we find no trace, that they felt any difficulty in respect to these accounts; or were at all uncertain as to the time when Jesus celebrated the last passover with his disciples, and afterwards suffered. Indeed the Easter controversy, in the earliest period of the church, manifestly shews, that on this point the eastern and western churches were entirely of one opinion. Since now it very clearly appears from the synoptical narrative of the gospels, that the last passover of which our Lord partook with his disciples, was not merely a commemorative repast (uvnμovizóv), but a real paschal meal (vouov); it was assumed by many, as is still done by Kuinoel, in order to bring about the desired harmony in the gospels, that Jesus with a portion of the Jews partook of the paschal lamb one day earlier than the rest of the Jews; an hypothesis, which, besides being destitute of all historical grounds, does not remove all the difficulties which are supposed to exist in the accounts in question. And as even Mosheim acknowledged his inability to come to a decision on the point; and Semler was disposed to pass it by, as being of too little importance to be worth the trouble of further investigation; and various other attempts of learned theologians have produced no better results; it is not surprising, that De Wette and Winer should at last declare, that to harmonize the accounts of the evangelists respecting this history, is impossible; or that the former, especially, should find in the narrative of the fourth gospel a very important variation, which renders even its genuineness doubtful. It is doubtless true, that the fourth gospel has contributed its share to produce this uncertainty and confusion; but without any fault of its own. Indeed interpreters would never have remained so long in darkness, and at last proceeded to this desperate conclusion, had they been disposed to follow the clear intimations of this evangelist, with confidence in him as an apostle and eye-witness; had they remembered that as an apostle and a native of Palestine, John has spoken of an annual and well-known religious institution of his people, in the common and familiar language of ordinary life; and had they therefore taken pains to ascertain the actual signification of his expressions, which was current at the time.

It was however quite natural in Bretschneider, to whom on other grounds the fourth gospel was already an object of suspicion, and who could place confidence only in the first three,

that, proceeding on the supposition of an entire disharmony of the gospels in this section, and adopting the common views in respect to this history and likewise the meanings commonly attributed to single expressions, he too should find in the narrative of John nothing but gross errors; which, however, he felt himself able to remove, by aid derived from Alexandria, and from the ancient manner of reckoning the different periods. of the day. He asserts:1 "In the fourth gospel, in the account given of the last passover of Jesus, there exists a two-fold contradiction. The first is, that Jesus partook of the meal on the day before the festival; and on the next following day, i. e. on the first day of the festival, which was the day of preparation (αoαoxεvn) for the passover-meal (John 18: 28), he was crucified, and consequently did not partake of the paschal lamb; while the other evangelists relate, that Jesus came to Jerusalem and partook of the paschal lamb on the first day of the festival οἱ ἐν τῇ παρασκευῇ τοῦ πάσχα, and then was crucified on the following day, after partaking of the paschal supper, and consequently ἐν τῇ παρασκευῇ τοῦ σαββάτου. The second contradiction is, that according to the fourth gospel, c. 18: 28, comp. 13: 1, the crucifixion took place on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, on the παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, and the Jews had not yet eaten the paschal lamb; while at the same time it is related, c. 19: 31, that the death of Jesus occurred on the παρασκευὴ τοῦ σαββάτου, that on the next day the sabbath was to be kept, and consequently Jesus suffered on the fif-. teenth day of Nisan."

Without stopping to scrutinize further this by no means satisfactory array of proofs, let us examine the history itself; from which we shall soon learn not only the truth and the deserts of the fourth gospel, but also the causes of the obscurity and variation which critics have so long found in the accounts of this evangelist; and likewise the source from which the author of the Probabilia has extracted the contradictions which he professes to have discovered in this part of the fourth gospel.

First of all, however, we will endeavour to gain some clear ideas and establish some fixed principles, according to which the accounts of the four evangelists on this point of history are to be understood and estimated.

What then does Moses first direct in regard to the passover?

1 Probabilia de Evang. Joh. Apost. Indole et Origine, p. 104.