§ 173. Conclusion of John's Gospel.

JOHN XX. 30, 31. XXI. 25.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, " which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye XXI. 25 might have life through his name. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

N.OTES

ON THE

HARMONY (F THE FOUR GOSPELS.

INTRODUCTION.

THE following Notes relate chiefly to the mode and order of harmonizing the narratives of the four Evangelists; and touch only incidentally upon other topics. They do not claim, in any sense, to be a Commentary upon the Gospels.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, along with many diversities, have nevertheless a striking affinity with each other in their general features of time and place. But, when compared with John's Gospel, there is seen to be a diversity no less striking between them and the latter, not only in respect to chronology, but likewise as to the part of the country where our Lord's discourses and mighty works mainly occurred. Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak only of one Passover, that at which Jesus suffered; and from this it would follow, that our Lord's ministry continued at most only about six months. John expressly enumerates three Passovers, and more probably four, during Christ's ministry; which therefore must have had a duration of at least two and a half years, and more probably of three and a half. Again, Matthew, Mark, and Luke place the scene of Jesus' public ministrations chiefly in Galilee; whence he goes up to Jerusalem only just before his death. John, on the other hand, narrates the miracles and discourses of our Lord as occurring principally at Jerusalem, on various former occasions as well as at his last visit.

The apparent difficulty arising from the first difference, is at once set aside by the remark, that although the three Evangelists do expressly mention only one Passover, yet they do not any where, nor in any way, affirm, or even imply, that there were no more; while the testimony of John is express and definite. And further, the incident, narrated by all the three writers, of the disciples' plucking ripe cars of grain as they went through the fields, necessarily presupDoses the recent occurrence of a Passover during our Lord's ministry, different from the one at which he suffered; and this is further confirmed by Luke's mention of the "second sabbath after the first" in the same connection. Se Matth. 12, 1. Mark 2, 23. Luke 6, 1. See also the Note on § 37.

This difference being thus satisfactorily explained, the existence of the second difference is of course accounted for. If John is right in enumerating several Passovers, he is right in narrating what took place at Jerusalem on those occasions. But, more than this, we find in the other Evangelists several things in which they too seem to allude to earlier visits and labours of Jesus in the Holy City. So the language in which our Lord laments over Jerusalem, as having rejected his efforts, Matth. 23, 37. Luke 13, 34; and, further, his intimate relations with the family of Lazarus, which imply a longer acquaintance than a few weeks, Luke 10, 38. 39; comp. John 1-1, ▲. 2.

For these reasons, I do not hesitate to follow, with most Commentators, the chronology of John's Gospel, and assign to our Lord's ministry four Passovers, or a duration of three and a half years. The second of these Passovers, which is less certain than the rest, and depends upon the interpretation of John 5, 1, will be considered in its place; see Note on § 36.

In view of the same circumstances, it follows also that the Gospel of John was intended to be supplementary to the others, and to narrate only such facts and events as had not been recorded by the other Evangelists. This, too, is manifest on the pages of the Harmony; since up to the last week of our Lord's life, the language of John is in only a single instance parallel to that of the other Gospels, viz. in the feeding of the five thousand, and the accompanying incidents; see §§ 64, 65.

The Gospels, and especially the first three, can in no sense be regarded as methodical annals. It is therefore difficult, and perhaps impossible, so to harmonize them, in respect to time, as in all cases to arrive at results which shall be entirely certain and satisfactory. There is often in them no definite note of time; and then we can proceed only upon conjecture, founded on a careful comparison of all the circumstances. In such cases, the decision must depend very much upon the judgment and taste of the Harmonist; and what to one person may appear probable and appropriate, may seem less so to another.

It is the aim of the present work, not so much to ascertain and exhibit the true chronological order, (although this object is not neglected,) as to place side by side the different narratives of the same events, in an order which may be regarded as at least a probable one. In so doing I may hope to exhibit the legitimate uses of a Harmony, and accomplish a three-fold purpose, viz. to make the Evangelists their own best interpreters; to show how wonderfully they are supplemental to each other in minute as well as important particulars; and in this way to bring out fully and clearly the fundamental characteristic of their testimony, UNITY IN DIVERSITY.

In the arrangement of the Harmony, made in accordance with the probable sequence of the events, and without ascribing any preference to the order of either Evangelist, this unexpected result has been brought out, viz. that the order of both Mark and John remains every where undisturbed; with the exception of four short passages in Mark and of three in John; in all which cases the reasons for a change of order are apparent. See Mark 2, 15-22, in § 58. Mark 6, 17-20, in § 24. Mark 14, 22-25, in § 137. Mark 14, 66-72, in § 144. John 12, 2-8, in § 131. John 18, 25-27, in § 144. John 20, 30 31, in § 173 Besides these there are a few slight transpositions of single verses for the sake of closer parallelism; e. g. in §§ 112, 142, 153, etc.

PART I.

EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF OUR LORD

§§ 1-13.

§ 2. Zacharias was an ordinary priest of the class of Abia, one of the twentyfour classes instituted by David for the service of the temple, which relieved each other in succession every Sabbath; see 1 Chr. 24, 3-19. 2 Chr. 8, 14. Joseph. Ant. 7. 14. 7. Their service included the daily burning of incense on the altar of incense in the first or outer sanctuary; and this was what Zacharias was now doing; Luke 1, 9. Ex. 30, 6-8. 1 Chr. 23, 13.-It follows, that no inference whatever can hence be drawn as to the year, or season of the year, when the vision took place. Nor is it said how long a time elapsed between the vision and Elizabeth's conception; the expression "after those days" in v. 24 being quite indefinite.

§ 3. The sixth month here refers back, not to the vision, but to the conception of Elizabeth; see v. 36.

§ 4. The conjecture of Reland is probably correct, viz. that Juda in v. 39 is a softened form for Juta, i. e. Jutah or Juttah in Hebrew, a city of the priests in the mountains of Judah, south of Hebron; Josh 15, 55. 21, 16. The place still exists under the same name. See Reland Palæst. p. 870. Bibl. Researches in Palest. II. p. 628.

6. Mary remained with Elizabeth about three months, or nearly until the full time of the latter; and then returned to Nazareth; Luke 1, 56. It was after this and after the birth of John, when Mary was now in her fourth or fifth month, and her pregnancy had become perceptible, that Joseph was minded to put her away.

Several data how

§ 7. The precise year of our Lord's birth is uncertain. ever exist, by which an approximation may be made, sufficiently accurate to show that our present Christian era is not entirely correct.

1. According to Matth, 2, 1-6, Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and not long before his death. Herod died in the year of Rome (A. U.) 750, just before the Passover; see Jos. Antiq. 17. 8. 1. ib. 17. 9. 3. This has been verified by calculating the eclipse of the moon, which happened just before his death; Jos. Ant. 17. 6. 4. Ideler Handb. of Chronol. II. p. 391 sq. If now we make an allowance of time for the purification, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the remaining there till Herod was dead,-for all which not less than six months can well be required, it follows, that the birth of Christ cannot in any case be fixed later than the autumn of A. U. 749.

2. Another note of time occurs in Luke 3, 1. 2, where John the Baptist is said to have entered upon his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and again in Luke 3, 23, where Jesus is said to have been "about thirty years of

age" at his baptism. Now if both John and Jesus, as is quite probable, entered upon their ministry at the age of thirty, in accordance with the Levitical custom (Num. 4, 3. 35. 39. 43. 47), then by reckoning back thirty years we may ascertain the year of John's birth, and of course also that of Jesus. Augustus died Aug. 29th, A. U. 767; and was succeeded by Tiberius, who had already been associated with him in the government for at least two years, and probably three. If now we reckon from the death of Augustus, the fifteenth year of Tiberius commenced Aug. 29th, A. U. 781; and going back thirty years, we find that John must have been born not earlier than August, A. U. 751, and our Lord of course not earlier than A. U. 752;—a result disagreeing with that obtained from Matthew.by three years. If, on the other hand, we reckon from the time when Tiberius was admitted as co-regent of the empire, which is shown to have been certainly as early as A. U. 765, and probably in A. U. 764; then the fifteenth year of Tiberius began in A. U. 778, and it follows that John may have been born in A. U. 748, and our Lord in A. U. 749. In this way the results obtained from Matthew and Luke are more nearly coincident.

3. A third note of time is derived from John 2, 20, "Forty and six years vas this temple in building." Josephus says, in one place, that Herod began ɔ build the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign; while in another he specifies the fifteenth year; Ant. 15. 11. 1. B. J. 1. 21. 1. He also assigns the length of Herod's reign at thirty-seven or thirty-four years; according as he reckons from his appointment by the Romans, or from the death of Antigonus; Ant. 17. 8. 1. B. J. 1. 33. 8. Herod was first declared king of Judea in A. U. 714; Jos. Ant. 14. 14. 4, 5. B. J. 1. 14. 4. comp. Ant. 14. 16. 4. Ideler Handb. of Chron. II. p. 390. Hence the eighteenth year of his reign, when Herod began to rebuild the temple, would coincide with A. U. 732; and our Lord's first Passover, in the forty-seventh year following, would fall in A. U. 779. If now our Lord at that time was thirty and a half years of age, as is probable, this would carry back the year of his birth to the autumn of A. U. 748.

4. Further, according to a tradition preserved by the Latin Fathers of the first five centuries, our Lord's death took place during the consulate of the two Gemini, C. Rubellius and C. Fufius, that is, in A. U. 782. So Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, etc. See Tertull. adv. Jud. § 8. Augustin. de Civ. Dei XVIII. 54. If now the duration of his ministry was three and a half years, then, as before, the year of his birth would be carried back to the autumn of A. U. 748. 5. Some modern writers, taking into account the abode in Egypt and also the "two years" of Matth. 2, 16, have supposed that Jesus must have been from two to three years old at Herod's death; and hence they assume that he was born in A. U. 747. The same year, A. U. 747, is also fixed upon as the date of Christ's birth, by those who regard the star in the east as having been the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in that year. So Keppler, Münter, Ideler Handb. of Chronol. Berlin 1826.

From all these data it would appear, that while our Lord's birth cannot have taken place later than A. U. 749, it may nevertheless have occurred one or two years earlier.

The present Christian era, which was fixed by the abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, assumes the year of Christ's birth as coincident with A. U. 754. It follows then from the preceding statements, that this our common era begins in any case more than four years too late; that is, from four to five