able that the most ancient hj^jothesis is correct, al« though the circumstances urged against it are neither few nor feeble. The following arguments, however, seem to determine the question in favor of the I'assorer: ]. Had any less noted festival been meant, it would, as in other cases (see chap, vii, 2 ; x, 22), have been specified; but in the present case not even the article was required to distinguish it; whereas John in one instance only (vi, 4) uses TTciaxa to ([ualify a following topr//, when the latter is thus defined by TMv'lovSaiiov. 2. The en- suing Sabbath (SsvrtfioTTporog of Luke vi, 1) can only be that which was second after the offering of the wave- slieaf, and first after the Passover-week, and, liovi^ever interpreted, shows that a Passover had just preceded, for the harvest was just ripe. See Passover.
Sir Isaac Newton and I^lacknigbt suppose that Jive Passovers intervened between our Lord's baptism and crucifixion. This assumption rests on no foundation. Perhaps the term eopri] in John vii, 2 may have given rise to it, although fopnj is explained in that passage by (TKijvoTnjyia.
During the first three centuries it was commonly be- lieved that Christ's ministry lasted but one year, or one year and a few months (Routh, Reliq. Sacr. iv, 218). Such was the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus {Stro- mata, i, 21; vi, 11) and Origen (de Principiis, iv, 5). Euseljius thought that it continued for above three years, which hypothesis became general. The ancient hypothesis, which confined the time to one year, was re- vived by Mann and Priestley ; but Newcome, with more judgment, defended the common view, and refuted Priestley's arguments. The one-year view has found few late advocates except Jarvis (Introd. to History of Church) and Browne {Ordo Sceclonim). It has been well remarked by bishop Marsh that the Gospel of John presents almost insuperable obstacles to the opinion of those who confine Christ's ministrj' to one year. If John mentions but three Passovers, its duration must have exceeded two years; but if he mentions ,/ti(/?-, it must have been longer than three years. In interweav- ing the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with that of John, the intervals between the Passovers are filled up by various transactions. Were the number of these feasts determinate and precise, there would be a general agreement in the filling np of the times between them; but in consequence of the uncertainty attaching to the subject. Harmonies are found materially to differ in their modes of arrangement. One thing is evident, that the moderns, in their endeavors after a chronological dispo- sition of the gospels, adopt a far more rational course than the ancients. The latter strangely supposed that the first six chapters of John's Gospel relate to a period of Christ's ministry prior to that with which the other three evangelists begin their accounts of the miracles. Thus John alone was supposed to narrate the events be- longing to the earlier part of his ministry', wliile iMat- thew, Mark, and Luke related the transactions of the last year.
The most ancient Harmony of the Gospels of which composed by Tatian of Syria in the 2d centurv^, but it is now lost (see H. A. Daniel's Tatianus der Apoloe/et. Halle, 1837, 8vo). In the 3d century, Ammonius was the author of a Harmony sup- posed to be still extant, Eusebius of Csesarea also com- posed a Harmony of the Gospels about A.D. 315. In it he divided the Gospel histoiy into ten canons or tables, according as different facts are related by one or more of the evangelists. These ancient Harmonies, however, (lifter in character from such as belong to modern timer. They are summaries of the life of Christ, or indexes to the four gospels, rather than a chronological arrange- ment of different facts, accompanied by a reconciliation of^ apparent contradictions. (See Scrivener, Introd. to N. T. {1. 50.) In modern times, Andreas Osiander pub- lished his Harmomj of the Gospels in 1537. He adopted
ly Aiford (rVriZT T'''T''^''' ^''' ''^'''^- 1 '^' P"""l^l^ til'-*' t^e evangeUsts constantly -.>Tote lyAlford.G/.T'e./.adloc.). lo us it appears most prob- 1 chronological order. Cornelius J..nsoni„.'/r..„.«r,
HARMONY
19
HARMONY
COMPAEATIVE TABLE OF DIFFERENT HARMONIES.
Note.— This Table comprises only a few of those adjustmeuts of the Gospels (whether tabular or in full), which have become best known in America. The figures refer to the sections as they are numbered in Strong's Har- mony, and their order in each column shows the relative position assij.:ned by the several authors to the corfespond- iti"- events. An asterisk [*] points out a marked difference from the arrangement of that work in the particnlara of^iny event or passage ; an obelisk [t] indicates a clear repetition of some of the prominent incidents in another place; a double dagger [t] is prefixed to those sections in the arrangement of which the majority of harmouizera - oincide ; and parallels [II] are set to those concerning the position of which there is little or no dispute.
Ills 119 1120
1121 1122 B2? 1124 1125 1126 II 2T t2S 1129
1134 1135 fS6
EVENT. (in its principal features.;
Luke's Preface
•John's Introduction .
John's birth predicted. Annunciation to Mary. Mary visits Elizabeth..
Birth of John .. Joseph's vision.
Nativity of Jesus
Genealogies
The shepherds' vision . Circumcision of Jesus .
Presentation in the Temple.
Visit of the Magi