With regard to John's Gospel, it has little in common with the rest except the last two chapters. It is obvi- ous, however, that his arrangement is chronological. He carefully marks, in general, whether one, two, or three days happened between certain events. His gos- pel is therefore of great use in compiling a sj-nopsis.
It thus appears that no one gospel taken singly is sufficient to form a guide for the Gospel harmonist ; nor is he justified in selecting any one evangelist as a gen- eral guide, modifying that single narrative only as ab- solutely demanded by the statements of the other three. He must place them all together, and select from among them as the exigencies in each particidar case may re- quire. Of course he will take definite notes of time as a peremptory direction wherever they occur, and in the absence of these he will naturally follow the oixler of the majority of the Gospel nan-atives. Nor in this matter is he at liberty, as Stier has too often done (Words of Jesus, Am. ed., i, 31), to prefer one evange- list's authority to another, e. g. IVIatthew or John to Mark or Luke, on the ground that the former were apostles and the latter not, for they are all equally in- spired. Again, the same liberty or discretion that is called for in arranging the order and date of the ads and joimieys of our Lord must be exercised in adjusting his words and teachings; that is, the simple juxtaposi-
HARMONY
V8
HARMONY
tion of passages is not absolute e^•idence of coincidence
in time and immediate connection ni utterance w
thout
some express intimation to that eflect; so that incohe- rence, where palpable, or want of unanimity in this par- ticular among tlie (iosjiel reports or siunmaries them- selves, requires the liarnionizer to exercise the same judgment in the adjustment as in other particulars. (See the Meth. Quart. Renew, Jan. 1854, p. 79.) With these points premised and duly observed, there is no greater (Ufficulty in adjusting the four accounts of our Lord's life and "labors with a reasonable degree of cer- taintv than there would be in harmonizing into one consistent account the separate and independent deposi- tions of as many honest witnesses in any case of law. The only real questions of serious dispute in fact, aside from the main one presently to be mentioned, are those of a purely chronological character affecting the general date of ChrLsfs ministry as a whole, and the particular spot where certain incidents or discourses transpired; tlie rehitire order and position of nearly everything is but little disturbed by the various theories or views as to even these points. Hence is evident the rashness of those who assert, like Stier (Pref. to JMatt. and jNIark, in Words of Jesus), that the construction of a Harmony of the Gospels is impracticable ; for in the very same \vork he forthwith proceeds to construct and publish one him- self.
2. What was the duration of our Lord's ministry? This is a question upon which the opinions of the learn- ed have been much divided, and which cannot be settled with conclusive certainty. In order to resolve it, it is iK'ces.-arA' to mark the different Passovers which Christ attended. Looking to the gospels by IMatthew, Mark, and Lulic, we should infer that he v.-as present at no more tlian two: the (irst at the time of his baptism, the second immediately ijefore his crucifixion. But in John's gospel three Passovers at least are named during the pe- riod of our Lord's ministry (ii, 13; vi,4; xi,55). It is true that some writers ha\'e endeavored to adapt the giispL'l of John to the other three by reducing the Pass- overs mentioned in the former to tiro. So Priestley, Vossius, and Maim. In order to accomplish this, it was conjectured tliat TraVya, in cli. vi, 4, is an interpolation, and tlien tliat topri] denotes some other Jewish festival, lii.-liop I'carce went so far as to conjecture that the en- fire rcrse has been interpolated. For these rash specu- lations there is no authority. The received reading must liere be followed (Liicke's Commeniar iiber Johan- nes, 3d ed. ii, 104). In addition to these passages, it has been thought by many that another Passover is referred to in v, 1, where, although miaxa does not occur, ■>) (op- tI] is supposed to denote the same feast. But this is a subject of dispute. Irena;us is the oldest authority for explaining it of the Passover. Cyril and Chrvsostom, however, referred it to the Feast of Pentecost, an o])in- ion approved of by Erasmus. Calvin, and Beza; but Lii-' ther, (Jhemnitz, Calovius, Scaliger, Cirotius, and Light- foot ret\u-ned to the ancient view of Irenreus. Kepjiler seems to have been tlie lirst who conjectured that it
meant the Feast i^\•l^urim immediately j.receding the ' we nave anv account w second Passover. He was followed bv Petau, Lamv. DOutrcin, etc. Cocceius, followed by "Kaiser, referred U to the /V«.i< of Tabernacles ; while Keppler and Pe- tau intimated that it man pnssihhi have f.eeii the Feast of Dedication. Bcngel dilendcd'tbe opinion of Chrv- sostom; while Hug, Willi much plausil)ilitv, endeavdrs to show that it alludes to the feast o{ J'ukm immedi- ately before the Passover. Tlie latter view is adopted by Tholuck, Olshausen, and Clausen, though (ireswell maintains that the Passover is meant. It would occu- l>y too much space to adduce the various 'considerations that have been lu-ged for and against the two leading \'|>nnoiis, viz. the I'aJfsover and the Feast ofPurim. The true meaning oi topri, (for Lachmann has rightly omit- ted the article from before it; see Tiscliendorf Xi,r. Test. Tth ed. ad loc.) is still indeterminate