Section I

the principal chronological periods ascertained

IN undertaking a chronologically arranged history of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, our first task must necessarily be a comparison of the four Gospels, with reference to the order of events communicated by their respective statements.¹ If apparent or actual discrepancies are discovered by this process, our next effort must be an attempt to ascertain the true sequence; and when this has been discovered, to point out, and if possible to explain, the several departures therefrom, by the peculiar position of the Evangelist with respect to the objective Gospel history.

That the Evangelists do not all relate events in the same order, is an acknowledged fact. Of late, indeed, a considerable mass of seeming discrepancies have been added to these actual discrepancies; as, e.g., by the view that John relates the call of the first disciples as taking place at a period differing from that stated by the synoptists, reports Christ’s agony before His crucifixion, and at another place, and differs from them also concerning the day of the crucifixion. But though a more thorough comprehension of the Gospel history scatters such obscurities as these, it yet brings also into clearer light such discrepancies of chronology as actually exist. Those arising from a comparison between John and the synoptists may first be noticed. According to the latter (Mat 4:12; Mar 1:14; Luk 4:14), it might be assumed that Jesus commenced His public ministry in Galilee, and that, indeed, after John had been cast into prison; while from the statement of John it appears, that Jesus, after His first public appearance in Jerusalem, laboured for a period, contemporaneously with the Baptist, in Judea. The discrepancy may, indeed, be reduced to a merely seeming one, arising from an inaccuracy in the earlier Evangelists, viz., that they all omit Christ’s first official attendance at the Passover, and thus confuse His return from the banks of Jordan after His baptism with His return from the same place after that festival. The inaccuracy is certainly sufficiently prominent to assume the appearance of an actual discrepancy, until it is explained by the origin of the first three Gospels. But even the synoptists, independently considered, often differ in details in their respective orders. In the history of the temptation, for instance, Matthew makes the temptation upon the pinnacle of the temple precede that upon the high mountain; while Luke inverts this order. The latter places the occurrence at Nazareth, and the inimical disposition of the Nazarenes to the Lord, before His journeyings (chap. 4:16); while Matthew brings forward this event after Jesus had already been sojourning some time at Capernaum (13:54). The different positions occupied by the Lord’s Prayer in these two Gospels may also be mentioned here (Mat 6:9; Luk 11:2); while an inspection of a synopsis will immediately show other details which might be added. Finally, the Evangelist Luke seems even to confuse his own order, by relating Christ’s entry into Bethany at chap. 10:38, and then saying, chap. 17:11, that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee; though this, indeed, may be explained by the remark, that he gives the occurrences of several journeys consecutively. If, then, the fact is proved, that the Evangelists thus frequently differ from each other as to the order of events, the question arises, what is the rule by which their statements are to be reconciled?

First, we meet with the arrangement which attributes to each Evangelist an equal, and even perfect correctness, with respect to the matter in question. This result of harmony was connected with the rigidity of ancient, and especially of Lutheran orthodoxy. Andrew Osiander, in his Harmonia Evangeliorum, proceeds upon the principle, that ‘since the Evangelists were inspired, they could not but write truth, and consequently gave the discourses of Jesus verbotenus, and His discourses and acts in strictest consecutive order. Now as each of the four Evangelists is said to have written in consecutive order, while the same events are recorded at an earlier period by one, and at a later by others, no resource is left us but to take evidently parallel and identical occurrences for non-identical, and to suppose that the same occurrence, accompanied by the same circumstances, was frequently repeated.’² A composition would consequently have to be made, into which all these repetitions must be compressed. A want of life was the fundamental fault of this view, by which a perplexed, confusing multiplicity of Gospel facts, a multiplicity resting upon a very precarious tenure, was obtained, and the great, clear, and self-certifying unity of the Gospel history was lost.³ After the view of Osiander was abandoned, it became necessary to consider the separate Evangelists, with a view to discover which among them had preserved the groundwork of the true sequence, according to which the statements of the rest were to be arranged. Chemnitz (Harmoniæ Evangelicæ) decided for Matthew, yet did not follow him throughout. J. A. Bengel also (Richtige Harmonie der Evang.) considered that Matthew had observed chronological order, while Mark and Luke had allowed themselves more freedom than this would give them. The assumption that Matthew at least gives us to understand that he intended to write with strict regard to chronology, has of late been made use of in opposing the credibility of his Gospel. On the other hand, however, the persuasion that Matthew groups events according to their real connection, and follows this order in his statements, has been expressed with increasing certainty, especially by Olshausen (Commentary on the Gospels, Introd. p. 18), Hase (Das Leben Jesu, p. 3), Ebrard (Gospel History, p. 66).

They who regard the Gospel of Mark as the basis of the two other synoptical Gospels, cannot but give it the preference with regard to chronology also; as, e.g., Weisse (die Evang. Gesch. i. 66, 295). As the critical fates would have it, Mark obtained a recognition in this respect even from Schleiermacher, who, wishing to prove that the testimony of Papias does not apply to our extant Gospel according to Mark, refers to the declaration of Papias, that Mark wrote οὐ τάξει, while the present Gospel evidently follows a chronological order and decided plan. The chronological sequence of Mark is indeed frequently such, that everything takes place εὐθέως, in rapid succession. His order is, at all events, generally founded on the true order, as will be subsequently shown. Others again (compare Schott, Isagoge, p. 107; Zahn, Das Reich Gottes auf Erden, Pt. ii. p. 4) give Luke the preference. But the third Gospel, as before pointed out, exhibits as little as the first and second, a distinctly arranged order in details. ‘In the course of this Gospel, a similar indistinctness concerning the sequence of events is manifested, as in the other two; Luke, for the most part, narrates event after event, without any notice of time (chap. 4:16, 31, 5:12, &c.), and sometimes alternately uses the indefinite transitions μετὰ ταῦτα (5:27), ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερων (5:17, 8:22, &c.).’ Olshausen, Commentary, i. 19.

Our inquiries after the true order have now brought us to the Gospel of John. And here also that ruling spirit of the Evangelists, which found higher and certainly more important principles to influence their delineations of the life of Christ than those of chronological sequence, seems to cut off all hope of obtaining abundant chronological foundations. The principle of John’s view of the Gospel was a decidedly ideal and christological one; we are not therefore surprised to find that the leading incidents of his development do not coincide with the leading chronological periods. B. Jakobi⁴ rightly remarks, ‘The definitions of time in this Gospel are so delivered, that it is seen that the question with John is not to furnish a chronological, and least of all a complete chronological sketch of the life of Christ. Notes of time, when they are found, serve for the most part only to aid our conception of the position of an event or discourse; or to explain some circumstance of the narrative; or they obtrude themselves upon the narrator without design on his part, as integral parts of the occurrence which he is relating, by vivid representations of his own past experiences.’ In confirmation of this may be cited the circumstance, that John does not more nearly define the feast of the Jews, chap. 5:1, and thereby introduces an element of uncertainty into his chronology of the life of Jesus, which has presented many difficulties to investigators. Nevertheless Jakobi rightly asserts, that the Gospel of John must always furnish the foundation, according to which the statements of the other Evangelists must be arranged, with respect to their historical sequence; though he expresses this assertion too strongly in the remark that this Gospel is the only representation of the life of Jesus which is authentic, thoroughly credible, and, though very incomplete, yet perfectly self-consistent and accurate in all its several details, &c. Ebrard also expresses his conviction, that it was the intention of John to write consecutively and chronologically (p. 121). Neander is of the same opinion. He shows⁵ that, from the circumstance that the paschal festival is only once mentioned by the synoptists, and that at the close of Christ’s earthly course nothing further could, in the absence of other chronological indications, be inferred. The mention of the Passover feast might have been omitted, as well as other notes of time. But since nothing is found in the first Gospels which opposes the notion that Christ’s ministry extended over more years than one; since it is improbable in itself, that it should have lasted but one year; and since even in Luke a passing remark occurs which necessarily assumes the intervention of a Passover during Christ’s public ministry (the σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, Luke 6, in combination with the ripe ears of corn); all this is in favour of John, who mentions the different Passovers. After further discussing this subject, Neander rightly remarks, ‘If then it is to this Gospel alone that we are indebted for a chronologically arranged and practically connected representation of the public ministry of Jesus, a very favourable light is thus thrown upon its origin and historical character.’ Wieseler completes this estimation of the Gospel of John by the remark, that Luke also offers several special and important dates; e.g., chap. 2:1, 2, 3:23, 3:1, 2; Act 1:1; Act 1:3 : he consequently regards the two last Evangelists ‘as peculiarly his guides and authorities’ in his chronological investigations (Chr. Syn. p. 25).

The actual disparity between the three first Gospels and the fourth, must, besides the reasons already offered, be referred especially to the disparity between the circle of general evangelical tradition and the circle of John’s reminiscences. When Christ attended the first Passover, He had not yet called the greater number of His apostles; and this applies especially to Matthew. His four first disciples, however, had only entered upon their first close intercourse with Him, and did not become His assistants and companions till afterwards (comp. Mat 4:12; Mat 4:18). Anything remarkable, therefore, that might have occurred at the first Passover, could not have been so vividly impressed upon the minds of those first disciples, as those subsequent events to which they were called to testify. The deep doctrinal transaction between Christ and Nicodemus must have been committed to the remembrance of His most confidential disciple by the Lord Himself. But the public purification of the temple, a circumstance widely known, and which the disciples would have heard of, was without difficulty inserted in the tradition of that Passover around which so many manifestations of Christ were concentrated; and the more so, since a similar expression of Christ’s displeasure at this old abuse probably recurred.⁶ If Jesus, as we must suppose, went up to the second Passover, this visit was, on account of circumstances, strictly private. At the minor festivals, however, which He frequented, christological discussions, of which most of the disciples had then no mature appreciation, arose between Himself and the Jews; John alone was capable of preserving their profound matter, by the power of his love and anticipative penetration. The interval between the first and third Passover was, on the contrary, chiefly filled up by the popular ministry of Christ in Galilee; and hence it was this ministry which formed the chief material of the reminiscences of most of the disciples. It is probable that at the commencement of Christ’s last ministry in Judea and Jerusalem, He was accompanied only by some and not by all His disciples; while during the subsequent trying days before the crisis, most of them were so excited and agitated, that it was only upon so calm and profound a mind as John’s that incidents of such a kind as the high-priestly prayer would make an accurate impression. And though John lived in continual intercourse with the other disciples, yet the psychical preponderance of the majority could not but decidedly influence the prevailing form of apostolical tradition. If, finally, we accept the view, that John afterwards found a delineation of this tradition in existence, it follows that he would feel all the greater impulse to write that which was peculiarly his own. He was, besides, one of those disciples of the Baptist, whose hearts had kindled towards the Saviour after His baptism, through the testimony of the Baptist, and the manifestation of His own glory. Of what occurred at this period, he had the most vivid remembrance (Joh 1:35, &c.) He had also special connections in Jerusalem. It is probable that an attempt was at one time made, on the part of the high priest’s family, to get information from him with respect to his Master; and that his pure and childlike spirit had withstood the temptation, without coming to an open rupture. Hence he best understood the nature of the conflict at Jerusalem. His turn, too, for religious speculation specially fitted him to preserve and give a form to the strictly christological discussions between Christ and His enemies. It was thus that the difference originated between the sphere of his reminiscences and that of the general evangelical tradition.

It will result from our statement, that the material of the three first Evangelists unites harmoniously with the chronological plan of John’s narrative, into one rich whole.

But if the Gospel of John is made the foundation of our delineation with respect to the ministry of Christ, everything will depend upon clearing up the one uncertain point in the midst of it, viz., as to what feast of the Jews is intended in chap. 5:1.⁷ Every possible Jewish festival has been supposed to be intended by these words. But the question has been more and more reduced to the alternative, that either the Passover or the feast of Purim must be the one alluded to.⁸ For Jesus returned before attending this festival (most probably at seed-time, according to Joh 4:35), after His first long sojourn in Judea, through Samaria to Galilee, perhaps about November or December. At this time both the feasts of Pentecost and Tabernacles would be already past. The feast of the Dedication of the Temple (ἐνκαίνια), however, which was celebrated in the month of December (from the 25th of the month Chisleu), was too near to have left sufficient time between the return to Galilee and this festival for the lengthened ministry in Galilee, which took place in the interval. Consequently, either the feast of Purim, or the Passover of the succeeding spring, must be intended. If, then, this is the alternative to be decided on, the difference between the readings, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων and ἑόρτή, &c., without the article, is of the utmost importance. If the reading with the article is correct, and consequently the feast of the Jews simply is intended, the preference must be absolutely given to the Passover over the feast of Purim. We should then, indeed, be forced to interpose between this Passover and that mentioned chap. 6:4, a whole year which would be entirely barren of events. But since the reading with the article is considered ungenuine by the oldest and most important evidence (comp. Lücke and Wieseler⁹), the want of the article alone would incline us to the opposite view. For if merely a feast is spoken of, we should naturally conclude that one of the minor ones was intended. And when, finally, in connection with this notice, the Passover is immediately afterwards spoken of as nigh, we cannot but infer that the feast which was so near to the Passover, and preceded it with so little prominence, could be none other than the feast of Purim. This view is, after the precedent of Kepler, supported by Petavius, Tholuck, Olshausen, Neander, Krabbe, Winer, Jakobi, Ebrard, Wieseler, and others.¹⁰ It will be seen hereafter how well it accords with the inward connection of facts in the Lord’s life.

Hence the public ministry of Christ was exercised, almost entirely, during the space of two years; a period including three Passovers,—the time of the first preparation for His public appearance alone, preceding the first Passover. The whole series of events, however, which this interval embraces, cannot be divided according to the several Passovers, since these occur partly in the midst of certain stages of the Gospel history, while the feast of Purim (John 5), on the contrary, forms a decided turning-point of relations. For till this feast, the enthusiasm with which the Jewish people first welcomed Christ still prevailed, and His ministry was, in spite of sundry gentle warnings, restrictions, and isolated attacks, an uninterrupted and public one. But at this feast a decided collision took place between Christ and the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. From this time forth ‘the Jews’ persecuted, and sought to kill Him (Joh 5:16, comp. Joh 7:13; Joh 7:19; Joh 7:21-23; Joh 7:25). It was only occasionally, and when protected by the astonished multitude, that Jesus could henceforth freely appear among the people, being obliged, for the most part, to withdraw into Galilee, and subsequently into Perea, while even in these regions He was ever so involved in fresh conflicts with the excited pharisaic spirit, as to be continually obliged to change His place of sojourn by flight; now appearing in a district, and again as quickly disappearing from it. This period lasts till the time of His journey to His last Passover, when, with the knowledge that the crisis is now at hand, He appeared freely in public, surrendering Himself both to the homage of the people, and to His own trial. Having made these remarks, we may now proceed to define the separate periods of Christ’s life.

───♦───

Notes

1. Even the difference which is felt to exist between the teaching of Jesus in John and the synoptists, may be explained by the reasons given above for the difference of their selection of facts. When Jesus delivered those discourses to the multitudes, which the synoptists so delight to relate, parables and apophthegms were quite in place. When, on the contrary, He entered into those discussions with His adversaries, the chief points of which are given by John, this form of instruction was but partially applicable. A second explanation lies in the fact, that the three first Evangelists had, for the most part, anticipated the fourth in delivering this most comprehensible kind of instruction, namely, the parabolic and sententious; and that it also was part of the peculiarity of John, from the first, to appropriate the symbolic and speculative elements of Christ’s teaching. We may finally remark, that in John, as well as in the synoptists, the direct didactic form is not wanting in the parabolic discourses. Comp. Tholuck, die Glaubwürdigkeit der evang. Geschichte, p. 312, &c.

2. It by no means follows from the circumstance, that the several synoptical Evangelists do not relate the events of the Gospel history in direct chronological sequence, that they pay no regard to the great leading chronological features. Nay, even in those very groupings of the several occurrences which depend upon actual or traditional motives, they undoubtedly form single groups according to chronological sequence. Ebrard distinguishes in this respect p. 65, &c.) between ‘chains’ and ‘syndesms.’ By the former he understands a series of consecutive, interdependent events; by the latter, a definite concatenation of such chains.

3. Weisse expresses (Ev. Gesch. i. 292) the opinion, that we need for the public teaching of Christ, ‘a period of not too small a series of years.’ In this view he opposes the authority of the fourth Evangelist, and appeals to the authority of Irenæus, who, ‘makes the most celebrated events in the life of Jesus take place between His fortieth and fiftieth years.’ Irenæus, however, specially supported this statement by the passage, Joh 8:57, in which the Jews remark to Jesus, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old.’ According then to this author, we are to attach more credit to the fourth Gospel through the intervention of Irenæus, i.e., to an arbitrary interpretation of it by Irenæus, than to the same fourth Gospel itself, in its direct chronological statements. With respect also to the locality of Christ’s ministry, Weisse sets himself in direct opposition to the fourth Gospel, ‘which relates repeated visits to the festivals at Jerusalem’ (p. 293). The custom of journeying to the feasts is said to have no longer been so general in the days of Christ, as in the early and simpler times of the Jewish nation (p. 306). ‘So slavish a subjection to the ceremonial law as must be assumed to necessitate these journeys to the feasts,’ it is further said, ‘is opposed to all church-doctrinal views of the dignity of the Messiah.’ Jesus is therefore said to have ‘probably laboured many years’ in Galilee, without frequenting any feasts, and then perhaps at length influenced by the perception that His miraculous power was declining (p. 431), to have seized the resolution, and uttered the great saying, that He must go up to Jerusalem to be delivered up to His. enemies, to be ill-used and put to death by them. This hypothesis gives a monstrous representation of the personality and agency of Jesus. Only imagine a prophet of Israel absenting himself for years from the great feasts of his nation, and yet maintaining his prophetic credit in the eyes of the people journeying to the feasts; a Saviour remaining in isolated Galilee, while the people were thronging to Jerusalem; a reformer of the theocracy entering the external centre of this theocracy only at the end of his course, and to die! Not only would the religious, but even the moral feeling of the people of Galilee have rejected Him; for visits to the feasts were in their eyes not only a religious, but a civil duty, a sacred national custom.¹¹ According to this hypothesis, Christ’s journey to Jerusalem to die there, was but an act of fanatical caprice. The assumption that Christ must have considered these visits to the festivals a slavish subjection to the ceremonial law, deserves no discussion. Besides, the critic is not only in opposition to St John, but also to the synoptists (comp. Mat 23:37; Mat 27:58.)¹²

4. The Gospel of St John clears up the chronological obscurities of the three first Gospels. After the miracle which Jesus performed on the Sabbath, according to John 5, the Jewish party at Jerusalem began to persecute Him. The retirement which the Lord from this time observed, for the sake of obtaining time sufficient for the completion of His ministry, was probably the cause of His attending the next Passover in private, and unattended by His disciples (chap. 6:4), but not of His avoiding it. One consequence of this was, that this chronological period, as well as the first Passover, escaped most of His disciples, because they were then not yet among his followers.¹³

1) [ʽSinguli non sufficiunt ad chronologiam histori de Jesu Christo coagmentandam: conjuncti, satisfaciunt, ita inter se congruentes, ut unius operis instar sint eorum scripta.’ Bengel’s Ordo Temporum, p. 267 (ed. 1741).—Ed.]

2)  See Ebrard, Gospel History, pp. 49 and 58, [‘The blindness of sensible and learned men to any other than chronological order is exhibited by Bishop Marsh in the third volume of his edition of Michaelis, Pt. ii. p. 16.—ED.]

3) See Ebrard.

4) On the data for the chronology of the life of Jesus, in St John’s Gospel, by B. Jacobi, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1831, No. 3.

5) Life of Jesus Christ, p. 163 (Bohn’s Ed.)

6) [It will be seen below that the author decidedly favours this latter view. ED.]

7) For exegetical discussions, comp. Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 211, and Liicke’s Commentar in. loc.

8) The feast of Purim, or the feast of Lots (comp. Esth. ix.), in remembrance of the great change of lots, one of which, according to Haman’s design, was to bring about the destruction of Israel, the other of which, according to God’s counsel, brought a ruiuous retribution upon him and the enemies of Israel in general, was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month Adar, which immediately preceded the paschal month, Nisan, [See Hengstenberg’s Christology, iii. 241. The character of the feast of Purim has been urged, and not without reason, against the likelihood of Jesus being present at it. ‘This much is certain, it hath had the effect, which mere human institutions in matters of religion very commonly have, to occasion corruption and licentiousness of manners, rather than to promote piety and virtue. The Jews . . . make it a sort of rule of their religion to drink till they can no longer distinguish between the blessing of Mordecai and the cursing of Haman. Insomuch that Archbishop Usher styles the feast of Purim the Bacchanalia of the Jews.’ Jenning’s Jewish Antiquities, p. 544.—ED.]

9) [Tischendorf, however, retains the article. —ED.]

10) [For a full statement of opinions and discussion of the question, see Greswell’s Dissertations, ii., Dis. xxiii, ; or Andrews’ Life of our Lord, pp. 155-162,—ED.]

11) Comp. G. Schweitzer, der Christenglaube an Jesum von Nazareth, p.319. According to Weisse, p. 296, Mark, in the passage chap. xi. 11, is said to represent Jesus, ‘who had just entered Jerusalem, as looking around Him on all things in the temple, as one would do to whom all was still new and strange.’ Just perhaps like some aged Catholic countryman who comes for the first time to Cologne, and, after looking at the cathedral with astonishmeut, departs on his business.

12) [A full account of the literature on thé duration of our ord’s ministry is given in Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. iii. Pt. 2, pp. 56-67.—ED.]

13) [A list of harmonies is given by Marsh in the above-cited work, but it is both too full for practical purposes, and also composed mainly of works which are now superseded. Upwards of 150 are collected by Hase (Leben Jesu, p. 21, ed. 1854), though the works of Stroud, Greswell, and Robinson are all omitted trom this list. Selected lists are given by Tischendorf in his own very valuable and accessible Synopsis Evangelica (Lips. 1854); and by Ellicott in his Historical Lectures, &c., p. 15, note. The great principles of harmony are laid down by Michaelis (iii. 14), but are expressed in a more concise, scientific, and trustworthy manner by Ebrard (p. 57, &c.).—ED.]