Chapter 3 of 4 · 35938 words · ~180 min read

chapter 17

[Footnote b: Apparently they leave the Upper Room.]

Sect. 150. THE DISCOURSE ON THE WAY TO GETHSEMANE

Possibly on the Street

John 15 and 16[a]

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch 2 in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every _branch_ that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear 3 more fruit. Already ye are clean because of the word which I have 4 spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can 5 ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for 6 apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and 7 cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be 8 done unto you. Herein [1]is my Father glorified, [2]that ye bear 9 much fruit; and _so_ shall ye be my disciples. Even as the Father 10 hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have 11 kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and _that_ your 12 joy may be fulfilled. This is my commandment, that ye love one 13 another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than 14 this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my 15 friends, if ye do the things which I command you. No longer do I call you [3]servants; for the [4]servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard 16 from my Father I have made known unto you. Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and _that_ your fruit should abide: that whatsoever ye 17 shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These 18 things I command you, that ye may love one another. If the world hateth you, [5]ye know that it hath hated me before _it hated_ 19 you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, 20 therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, A [4]servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they keep my word, they will 21 keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my 22 name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have 23 no excuse for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and 25 my Father. But _this cometh to pass_, that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a 26 cause [_see Ps. 35:19; 69:4_]. But when the [6]Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, _even_ the Spirit of truth, which [7]proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness 27 of me: [8]and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be made 2 to stumble. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth 3 service unto God. And these things will they do, because they have 4 not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I spoken unto you, that when their hour is come, ye may remember them, how that I told you. And these things I said not unto you from the 5 beginning, because I was with you. But now I go unto him that sent 6 me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the [6]Comforter will not come unto 8 you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of 9 righteousness, and of judgement: of sin, because they believe not 10 on me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold 11 me no more; of judgement, because the prince of this world hath 12 been judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot 13 bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, _these_ shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare 15 _it_ unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare _it_ 16 unto you. A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a 17 little while, and ye shall see me. _Some_ of his disciples therefore said one to another, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye behold me not; and again a little while, 18 and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? We know not 19 what he saith. Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves concerning this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold me not, and again 20 a little while, and ye shall see me? Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: 21 ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but when she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more 22 the anguish, for the joy that a man is born into the world. And ye therefore now have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from you 23 [_see Isa. 66:14_]. And in that day ye shall [9]ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If ye shall ask anything of the 24 Father, he will give it you in my name. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled. 25 These things have I spoken unto you in [10]proverbs: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in [10]proverbs, but 26 shall tell you plainly of the Father. In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will [11]pray the Father 27 for you; for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved 28 me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father. I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave 29 the world, and go unto the Father. His disciples say, Lo, now 30 speakest thou plainly, and speakest no [12]proverb. Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Behold, the hour cometh, 32 yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and _yet_ I am not alone, because the 33 Father is with me. These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

[Footnote 1: Or, _was_.]

[Footnote 2: Many ancient authorities read _that ye bear much fruit, and be my disciples_.]

[Footnote 3: Gr. _bondservants_.]

[Footnote 4: Gr. _bondservant_.]

[Footnote 5: Or, _know ye_.]

[Footnote 6: Or, _Advocate_. Or, _Helper_. Gr. _Paraclete_.]

[Footnote 7: Or, _goeth forth from_.]

[Footnote 8: Or, _and bear ye also witness_.]

[Footnote 9: Or, _ask me no question_.]

[Footnote 10: Or, _parables_.]

[Footnote 11: Gr. _make request of_.]

[Footnote 12: Or, _parable_.]

[Footnote a: Chapters 14-17 are called the Heart of Christ. Nowhere does the Master lay bare his very soul more completely than here in chapters 15 and 16, with the allegory of the Vine and the teaching concerning the Holy Spirit.]

Sect. 151. CHRIST'S INTERCESSORY PRAYER

Possibly near Gethsemane

John 17

1 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may 2 glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give 3 eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, _even_ Jesus 4 Christ. I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the 5 work which thou hast given me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee 6 before the world was. I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them 7 to me; and they have kept thy word. Now they know that all things 8 whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received _them_, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed 9 that thou didst send me. I [1]pray for them: I [1]pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I 11 am glorified in them. And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we 12 _are_. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled 13 [_see Ps. 41:9_]. But now I come to thee; and these things I speak 14 in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they 15 are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I [1]pray not that thou shouldest take them [2]from the world, but that thou 16 shouldest keep them [2]from [3]the evil _one_. They are not of the 17 world, even as I am not of the world. [4]Sanctify them in the 18 truth: thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, 19 even so sent I them into the world. And for their sakes I [4]sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in 20 truth. Neither for these only do I [1]pray, but for them also that 21 believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, that they also may be 22 in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they 23 may be one, even as we _are_ one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou 24 didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me. Father, [5]that which thou hast given me, I will that, where I am, they also may be with me; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 25 world. O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew 26 thee; and these knew that thou didst send me; and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.

[Footnote 1: Gr. _make request_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _out of_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _evil_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _Consecrate_.]

[Footnote 5: Many ancient authorities read _those whom_.]

Sect. 152. GOING FORTH TO GETHSEMANE, JESUS SUFFERS LONG IN AGONY

IN AN OPEN GARDEN, BETWEEN THE BROOK KEDRON AND THE FOOT OF THE MOUNT OF OLIVES

Late in the night introducing Friday

[Footnote 1: Gr. _an enclosed piece of ground_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not_.]

[Footnote 3: Many ancient authorities omit verses 43, 44.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _ravine_. Gr. _winter-torrent_.]

[Footnote 5: Or, _of the Cedars_.]

[Footnote a: The Synoptic Gospels do not give the great discourse of Jesus in John 14 to 17. Hence they represent Jesus as going forth to Gethsemane after the institution of the supper (Sect. 148). The time was probably not long and they apparently sang the hymn (probably one of the Psalms) as they rose to leave the Upper Room (John 14:31). Hence the passage in John 15 to 17 comes in between singing the hymn and reaching Gethsemane.]

## PART XIII

THE ARREST, TRIAL, CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL OF JESUS

_Thursday Night, Friday, and Saturday of Passion Week (Days of Darkness for the Kingdom of God[a]). Sects. 153-168._

[Footnote a: "Your hour and the power of darkness" (Luke 22:53). Friday, the Day of Suffering, has become for Christians the Day of the Cross and of Glory.]

Sect. 153. JESUS IS BETRAYED, ARRESTED AND FORSAKEN

Garden of Gethsemane. Friday, long before dawn

[Footnote 1: Gr. _kissed him much_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _bondservant_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _cohort_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _military tribune_. Gr. _chiliarch_.]

Sect. 154. JESUS FIRST[a] EXAMINED BY ANNAS, THE EX-HIGH-PRIEST

_The Jewish Trial and related occurrences, Sects. 154-162._

Friday before dawn

John 18:12-14, 19-23

12 So the [1]band and the [2]chief captain, and the officers of the 13 Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year. 14 Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. 19 The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of 20 his teaching. Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in [3]synagogues, and in the temple, where all 21 the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard _me_, what I spake unto them: 22 behold, these know the things which I said. And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus [4]with his 23 hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

[Footnote 1: Or, _cohort_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _military tribune_. Gr. _chiliarch_.]

[Footnote 3: Gr. _synagogue_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _with a rod_.]

[Footnote a: The _Jewish trial_ comprised three stages, the preliminary examination by Annas (Sect. 154), the informal trial by the Sanhedrin, probably before dawn, and the formal trial after dawn. With these are narrated two related matters, the denial by Peter and the suicide of Judas.]

Sect. 155. JESUS HURRIEDLY TRIED AND CONDEMNED BY CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIN, WHO MOCK AND BUFFET HIM

Residence of the High-priest Caiaphas. Before dawn on Friday

[Footnote 1: Or, _sanctuary_: as in Matt. 23:35; and chap. 27:5.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _liable to_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _with rods_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _strokes of rods_.]

[Footnote 5: Gr. _him_.]

Sect. 156. PETER THRICE[a] DENIES HIS LORD

COURT OF THE HIGH-PRIEST'S RESIDENCE, DURING THE SERIES OF TRIALS

Friday before and about dawn

[Footnote 1: Or, _I neither know, nor understand: thou, what sayest thou?_]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _forecourt_.]

[Footnote 3: Many ancient authorities omit _and the cock crew_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _And he began to weep._]

[Footnote 5: Gr. _bondservants_.]

[Footnote 6: Gr. _a fire of charcoal_.]

[Footnote a: Each of the four Gospels records three denials; but the details differ considerably, as must always be the case where in each narrative a few facts are selected out of many sayings and doings. We have seen (footnote on Sect. 154) that there were _three stages_ of the Jewish trial, (l) before Annas, (2) before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin for informal examination, (3) before them in a formal trial. Now John gives only the first of the three stages, Luke only the last, Matthew and Mark give the second stage fully, and the third in brief mention. If Peter's denials ran through all three (and Luke says in ver. 59 that there was an hour between his second and third denials), then no one of the four Gospels could give each of the denials precisely at the time of its occurrence; and so each Gospel merely throws them together, as in another way we here bring them together in one section. There is no difficulty about the substantial fact of the denials; and we must be content with our inability to arrange all the circumstances into a complete programme.]

Sect. 157. AFTER DAWN, JESUS IS FORMALLY[a] CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN

Friday

Mark 15:1 |Matt. 27:1 |Luke 22:66-71 | | 1 And straightway | 1 Now when morning |66 And as soon as in the morning the | was come, all the | it was day, the chief priests with | chief priests and | assembly of the the elders and | the elders of the | elders of the scribes, and the | people took counsel | people was whole council, held | against Jesus to put| gathered together, a consultation, | him to death: | both chief priests | | and scribes; and | | they led him away 67 into their council, saying, If thou art the Christ, tell us. But 68 he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I 69 ask _you_, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated on the right hand of the power of God [_see Ps. 70 110:1; Dan. 7:13_]. And they all said, Art thou then the Son of 71 God? And he said unto them, [1]Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.

[Footnote 1: Or, _Ye say_ it, _because I am._]

[Footnote a: This ratification of the condemnation after dawn was an effort to make the action legal. But no ratification of a wrong can make it right. Some modern Jewish writers admit the illegalities and argue the unhistorical character of the narrative. But the hate of the Sanhedrin for Jesus made them violate their own rules of legal procedure. See my book, _The Pharisees and Jesus_.]

Sect. 158. REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS THE BETRAYER

IN THE TEMPLE AND IN A PLACE WITHOUT THE WALLS OF JERUSALEM

Friday morning

Matt. 27:3-10 |Acts 1:18, 19 | 3 Then Judas, which betrayed |18 (Now this man obtained a him, when he saw that he was | field with the reward of his condemned, repented himself, | iniquity; and falling headlong, and brought back the thirty | he burst asunder in the midst, pieces of silver to the chief | and all his bowels gushed out. 4 priests and elders, saying, I |19 And it became known to all the have sinned in that I betrayed | dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch [1]innocent blood. But they | that in their language that said, What is that to us? see | field was called Akeldama, that 5 thou _to it_. And he cast down | is, The field of blood.) the pieces of silver into the | sanctuary, and departed; and he| 6 went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the [2]treasury, since it is the price of blood [_see Deut. 23:18_]. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to 8 bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of 9 blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken [3]by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And [4]they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, [5]whom 10 _certain_ of the children of Israel did price; and [6]they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me [_see Zech. 11:13; Jer. 18:2; 19:2; 32:6-15_].

[Footnote 1: Many ancient authorities read _righteous_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _corbanas_, that is, _sacred treasury_. Comp. Mark 7:11.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _through_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _I took_.]

[Footnote 5: Or, _whom they priced on the part of the sons of Israel_.]

[Footnote 6: Some ancient authorities read _I gave_.]

Sect. 159. JESUS BEFORE PILATE THE FIRST[a] TIME

Jerusalem. Friday, early morning

[Footnote 1: Or, _an anointed king_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _Praetorium_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _officers_: as in verses 3, 12, 18, 22.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _Thou sayest_ it, _because I am a king._]

[Footnote a: The Roman Trial also comprised three stages, (1) the first appearance before the Roman procurator Pilate (Sect. 159), (2) the appearance before Herod Antipas, the native ruler of Galilee appointed by the Romans (Sect. 160), and (3) the final appearance before Pilate (Sect. 161).]

Sect. 160. JESUS BEFORE HEROD ANTIPAS THE TETRARCH

Jerusalem. Friday, early morning

Luke 23:6-12

6 But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a 7 Galilean. And when he knew that he was of Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days. 8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was of a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning 9 him;[a] and he hoped to see some [1]miracle done by him. And he 10 questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the 11 chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and 12 arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

[Footnote 1: Gr. _sign_.]

[Footnote a: See Sect. 71.]

Sect. 161. JESUS THE SECOND TIME BEFORE PILATE

_Pilate slowly and reluctantly and in fear surrenders to the demand of the Sanhedrin for the crucifixion of Christ._

Friday toward sunrise (John 19:14)

[Footnote 1: Or, _a feast_.]

[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities read _of this blood: see ye etc._]

[Footnote 3: Gr. _Praetorium_. See Mark 15:16.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _palace_.]

[Footnote 5: Many ancient authorities insert ver. 17 _Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one_ prisoner. Others add the same words after ver. 19.]

[Footnote 6: Or, _with rods_.]

[Footnote 7: Or, _authority_.]

[Footnote 8: Or, _opposeth Caesar_.]

[Footnote a: It appears that John, who wrote in Asia Minor, long after the destruction of Jerusalem, makes the day begin at midnight, as the Greeks and Romans did. We seem compelled so to understand him in 20:19 (comp. Luke 24:29-39); and in no passage of his Gospel is that view unsuitable. Here then we understand that Pilate passed the sentence about sunrise, which at the Passover, near the vernal equinox, would be 6 o'clock. The intervening three hours might be occupied in preparations, and the Crucifixion occurred at 9 o'clock, viz. the third hour as counted by the Jews (Mark 15:25).]

[Footnote b: Pilate, of course, could not escape full legal and moral responsibility for his cowardly surrender to the Sanhedrin to keep his own office. The guilt of the Sanhedrin (both Pharisees and Sadducees unite in the demand for the blood of Jesus) is beyond dispute. It is impossible to make a mere political issue out of it and to lay all the blame on the Sadducees, who feared a revolution. The Pharisees began the attacks against Jesus on theological and ecclesiastical grounds. The Sadducees later joined the conspiracy against Christ. Judas was a mere tool of the Sanhedrin, who had his resentments and grievances to avenge. There is guilt enough for all the plotters in the greatest wrong of the ages.]

Sect. 162. THE ROMAN SOLDIERS MOCK[a] JESUS

Friday, between 6 and 9 A.M.

Mark 15:16-19 |Matt. 27:27-30 | 16 And the soldiers led him away|27 Then the soldiers of the within the court, which is the | governor took Jesus into the [4]Praetorium; and they call | [1]palace, and gathered unto 17 together the whole [2]band. And|28 him the whole [2]band. And they they clothe him with purple, | [3]stripped him, and put on him and plaiting a crown of thorns,|29 a scarlet robe. And they 18 they put it on him; and they | plaited a crown of thorns and began to salute him, Hail, King| put it upon his head, and a 19 of the Jews! And they smote his| reed in his right hand; and head with a reed, and did spit | they kneeled down before him, upon him, and bowing their | and mocked him, saying, Hail, knees worshipped him. |30 King of the Jews! And they spat | upon him, and took the reed and | smote him on the head.

[Footnote 1: Gr. _Praetorium_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _cohort_.]

[Footnote 3: Some ancient authorities read _clothed him_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _palace_.]

[Footnote a: The Sanhedrin likewise had mocked Jesus when they had condemned him to death (Sect. 155).]

Sect. 163. JESUS ON THE WAY TO THE CROSS (_VIA DOLOROSA_) ON GOLGOTHA[a]

Before 9 A.M. Friday

[Footnote 1: Gr. _impressed_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _impress_.]

[Footnote 3: According to the Latin, _Calvary_, which has the same meaning.]

[Footnote a: Golgotha is the Aramaic word for "skull," and Calvary is the Latin word. The place cannot have been where the so-called "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" stands, far within the walls. There is of late a rapidly growing agreement that it was the northern end of the Temple hill, whose rounded summit (without the city wall), and southern face with holes in the rock, looks at a little distance much like a skull. This place fulfils all the conditions.]

Sect. 164. THE FIRST THREE HOURS ON THE CROSS

_From nine A.M. till noon on Friday (three sayings of Jesus; the soldiers gambling for the garment of Jesus; the inscription on the Cross; the scoffing of Jesus by the multitude, the Sanhedrin, the soldiers, and even by the two robbers on each side of Christ)_[a]

[Footnote 1: Or, _sanctuary_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _can he not save himself?_]

[Footnote 3: Many ancient authorities insert ver. 28 _And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was reckoned with transgressors._ See Luke 22:37.]

[Footnote 4: Some ancient authorities omit _And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do._]

[Footnote 5: Or, _tunic_.]

[Footnote 6: Some ancient authorities read _into thy kingdom_.]

[Footnote 7: Or, _for the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was nigh at hand_.]

[Footnote a: It is not easy to tell the precise order of the events during this period of three hours, since the Gospels do not present them in the same detail or order. On the whole it has seemed best simply to follow Mark's arrangement as we have done uniformly in the Harmony. Thus the apparent order of the sayings is (1) The Prayer for Christ's enemies in Luke 23:34. (2) The Promise to the Repentant Robber in Luke 23:43. (3) The Charge to the Mother of Jesus and to the Beloved Disciple in John 19:26, 27. These three sayings are with reference to others.]

Sect. 165. THE THREE HOURS OF DARKNESS FROM NOON TO THREE P.M.

_(Four More Sayings[a] at the Close of the Darkness and the Death of Christ.)_

[Footnote 1: Or, _earth_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _why didst thou forsake me?_]

[Footnote 3: Many ancient authorities add _And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood._ See John 19:34.]

[Footnote 4: Gr. _the sun failing_.]

[Footnote 5: Or, _And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said_.]

[Footnote a: The probable order of these four sayings coming just before the death of Jesus is (1) The Cry of Desolation, Mark 15:34 = Matt. 27:46. (2) The Cry of Physical Anguish, John 19:28. (3) The Cry of Victory, John 19:30. (4) The Cry of Resignation, Luke 23:46. These four sayings of Jesus are with reference to himself.]

Sect. 166. THE PHENOMENA ACCOMPANYING THE DEATH OF CHRIST

[Footnote 1: Many ancient authorities read _so cried out, and gave up the ghost_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _sanctuary_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _a son of God_.]

[Footnote 4: Gr. _little_.]

Sect. 167. THE BURIAL OF THE BODY OF JESUS IN THE TOMB OF JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AFTER PROOF OF HIS DEATH

Friday afternoon before 6 P.M.

[Footnote 1: Many ancient authorities read _were already dead_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _began to dawn_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _crushed_.]

[Footnote 4: Some ancient authorities read _roll_.]

Sect. 168. THE WATCH OF THE WOMEN BY THE TOMB OF JESUS

_The women maintain their watch and rest on the Sabbath (beginning 6 P.M.) while the Pharisees have a guard of Roman soldiers to keep watch over the Roman seal on the tomb._

Friday afternoon till Saturday afternoon

[Footnote 1: Or, _Take a guard_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _make it sure, as ye know_.]

[Footnote a: Luke (23:54) notes that "the Sabbath drew on" after the burial on Friday afternoon. The Sabbath began at 6 P.M. Then Luke notes that the women rested during the Sabbath (our Friday night and Saturday).]

## PART XIV

THE RESURRECTION, APPEARANCES, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST

_During forty days beginning with Sunday after the death of Christ. Spring of A.D. 30 (or 29). Judea and Galilee.[a] Sects. 169-184._

[Footnote a: Of this period we see that he remained at or near Jerusalem for a week. Then he probably left at once for Galilee (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). In the month that followed we cannot fix the exact time of the events that occurred in Galilee, but just at the end of the forty days we find him again in Jerusalem.]

Sect. 169. THE VISIT OF THE WOMEN TO THE TOMB OF JESUS

_They watch the tomb late on the Sabbath (our Saturday afternoon); and the purchase of spices by them after the Sabbath (after 6 P.M. Saturday) on the first day of the week._

GOLGOTHA AND BETHANY

Our late Saturday afternoon and early evening

[Footnote a: This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular _Koine_ Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the sabbath was over (before 6 P.M. on Saturday). But the same Greek idiom was occasionally used in the sense of "after." See Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 645. The distance from Bethany to Golgotha was not more than a sabbath day's journey. The spices could be purchased after sundown either in Bethany or Jerusalem. It must be borne in mind that the Jewish First Day of the Week began at 6 P.M. on our Saturday.]

Sect. 170. THE EARTHQUAKE, THE ROLLING AWAY OF THE STONE BY AN ANGEL, AND THE FRIGHT OF THE ROMAN WATCHERS

Sunday before sunrise

Matt. 28:2-4

2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and 3 sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white 4 as snow: and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.

Sect. 171. THE VISIT OF THE WOMEN TO THE TOMB OF JESUS ABOUT SUNRISE SUNDAY MORNING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE ANGELS ABOUT THE EMPTY TOMB

Golgotha. Early Sunday morning

[Footnote 1: Many ancient authorities read _where he lay_.]

[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit _of the Lord Jesus_.]

[Footnote 3: Gr. _him that liveth_.]

[Footnote 4: Some ancient authorities omit _He is not here, but is risen._]

[Footnote a: So he had already risen at early dawn on the first day of the week. He was buried (Sect. 167) shortly before sunset on Friday, and at sunset the sabbath began. So he lay in the tomb a small part of Friday, all of Saturday, and 10 or 11 hours of Sunday. This corresponds exactly with the seven times repeated statement that he would or did rise "on the third day," which _could not possibly_ mean after 72 hours. The phrase two or three times given, "after three days," naturally denoted for Jews, as for Greeks and Romans, a whole central day and any part of a first and third, thus agreeing with "on the third day." Even the "three days and three nights" of Matt. 12:40 need not, according to known Jewish usage, mean more than we have described. So these expressions _can_ be reconciled with "on the third day," and with the facts as recorded, while "on the third day" _cannot_ mean after 72 hours. See Note 13 at end of the Harmony for full discussion of the question. There is no real appeal from the testimony of Luke, who gives the whole period. Luke states that Jesus was buried just before the sabbath "drew on" (our Friday evening); that the women rested during the sabbath (our Saturday), and that Jesus was already risen early Sunday morning when the women came to the tomb.]

Sect. 172. MARY MAGDALENE AND THE OTHER WOMEN REPORT TO THE APOSTLES AND PETER AND JOHN VISIT THE EMPTY TOMB

Luke 24:9-12 |John 20:2-10 | 9 and returned [1]from the tomb, | 2 She runneth therefore, and and told all these things to | cometh to Simon Peter, and to the eleven, and to all the | the other disciple, whom Jesus 10 rest. Now they were Mary | loved, and saith unto them, Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary| They have taken away the Lord the _mother_ of James: and the | out of the tomb, and we know other women with them told | not where they have laid him. these things unto the apostles.| 3 Peter therefore went forth, and 11 And these words appeared in | the other disciple, and they their sight as idle talk; and | 4 went toward the tomb. And they they disbelieved them. | ran both together: and the | other disciple outran Peter, 12 [2]But Peter arose, and ran | 5 and came first to the tomb; and into the tomb; and stooping and| stooping and looking in, he looking in, he seeth the linen | seeth the linen cloths lying; clothes by themselves; and he | 6 yet entered he not in. Simon [3]departed to his home, | Peter therefore also cometh, wondering at that which was | following him, and entered into come to pass. | the tomb; and he beholdeth the | 7 linen cloths lying, and the | napkin, that was upon his head, | not lying with the linen | cloths, but rolled up in a | 8 place by itself. Then entered | in therefore the other disciple | also, which came first to the | tomb, and he saw, and believed. | 9 For as yet they knew not the | scripture, that he must rise |10 again from the dead. So the | disciples went away again unto | their own home.

[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities omit _from the tomb_.]

[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit verse 12.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _departed, wondering with himself_.]

_Five appearances are given as occurring on the day of his resurrection, and five subsequently during the forty days. The five appearances on this day were (1) to Mary Magdalene (John and Mark); (2) to other women (Matthew); (3) to the two going to Emmaus; (4) to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34); (5) to ten apostles and others._

Sect. 173. THE APPEARANCE OF JESUS TO MARY MAGDALENE AND THE MESSAGE TO THE DISCIPLES

Jerusalem. The first day of the week (Sunday)

[Footnote 1: The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _demons_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _Teacher_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _Take hold not on me._]

Sect. 174. THE APPEARANCE OF JESUS TO THE OTHER WOMEN

Jerusalem. Sunday the first day of the week

Matt. 28:9-10

9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and 10 took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Sect. 175. SOME OF THE GUARD REPORT TO THE JEWISH RULERS

Matt 28:11-15

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were 12 come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, 13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away 14 while we slept. And if this [1]come to the governor's ears, we 15 will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, _and continueth_ until this day.

[Footnote 1: Or, _come to a hearing before the governor_.]

Sect. 176. THE APPEARANCE TO TWO DISCIPLES (CLEOPAS AND ANOTHER) ON THE WAY TO EMMAUS

Sunday afternoon

Mark 16:12, 13 |Luke 24:13-32 | 12 And after these things he was|13 And behold, two of them were manifested in another form unto| going that very day to a two of them, as they walked, on| village named Emmaus, which was 13 their way into the country. And| threescore furlongs from they went away and told it unto|14 Jerusalem. And they communed the rest: neither believed they| with each other of all these them. |15 things which had happened. And | it came to pass, while they | communed and questioned 16 together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But 17 their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, [1]What communications are these that ye have one with 18 another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad. And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, [2]Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to 19 pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the 20 people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up 21 to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel. Yea and beside all this, it is 22 now the third day since these things came to pass. Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the 23 tomb; and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was 24 alive. And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and 25 found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe 26 [3]in all that the prophets have spoken! Behoved it not the Christ 27 to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in 28 all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as 29 though he would go further. And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is now far 30 spent. And he went in to abide with them. And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the [4]bread, and 31 blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were 32 opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?

[Footnote 1: Gr. _What words are these that ye exchange one with another?_]

[Footnote 2: Or, _Dost thou sojourn alone in Jerusalem, and knowest thou not the things._]

[Footnote 3: Or, _after_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _loaf_.]

Sect. 177. THE REPORT OF THE TWO DISCIPLES AND THE NEWS OF THE APPEARANCE TO SIMON PETER

Jerusalem. Sunday evening

Sect. 178. THE APPEARANCE TO THE ASTONISHED DISCIPLES (THOMAS ABSENT) WITH A COMMISSION AND THEIR FAILURE TO CONVINCE THOMAS

Jerusalem. Sunday evening

[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities omit _and saith unto them, Peace_ be _unto you_.]

[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit ver. 40.]

[Footnote 3: Many ancient authorities add _and a honeycomb_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _Holy Spirit_.]

[Footnote 5: That is, _Twin_.]

[Footnote a: Of our Lord's final commissions to the apostles and others (Luke 24:33), this is the first. See a second in Sect. 181, and a third in Sect. 183.]

Sect. 179. THE APPEARANCE TO THE DISCIPLES THE NEXT SUNDAY NIGHT AND THE CONVINCING OF THOMAS

Jerusalem

John 20:26-31 |1 Cor. 15:5 | 26 And after eight days again | 5 [and that he appeared to his disciples were within, and | Cephas;] then to the twelve; Thomas with them. Jesus cometh,| the doors being shut, and stood| 27 in the midst, and said, Peace _be_ unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach _hither_ thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, 28 but believing. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my 29 God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, [1]thou hast believed: blessed _are_ they that have not seen, and _yet_ have believed. 30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the 31 disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

[Footnote 1: Or, _hast thou believed?_]

Sect. 180. THE APPEARANCE TO SEVEN DISCIPLES BESIDE THE SEA OF GALILEE.[a] THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES

John 21

1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and he manifested _himself_ on 2 this wise. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called [1]Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the _sons_ of 3 Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also come with thee. They went forth, and entered into the boat; and that night they 4 took nothing. But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the 5 beach: howbeit the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus therefore said unto them, Children, have ye aught to eat? They 6 answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now 7 they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his 8 coat about him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off), dragging the 9 net _full_ of fishes. So when they got out upon the land, they see [2]a fire of coals there, and [3]fish laid thereon, and [4]bread. 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now taken. 11 Simon Peter therefore went [5]up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there 12 were so many, the net was not rent. Jesus saith unto them, Come _and_ break your fast. And none of the disciples durst inquire of 13 him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus cometh, and 14 taketh the [6]bread, and giveth them, and the fish likewise. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after he was risen from the dead. 15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, _son_ of [7]John, [8]lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I [9]love thee. He 16 saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again a second time, Simon, _son_ of [7]John, [8]lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I [9]love thee. He saith unto 17 him, Tend my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, _son_ of [7]John, [9]lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, [9]Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou [10]knowest that I [9]love 18 thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and 19 carry thee whither thou wouldest not. Now this he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. And when 20 he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is he 21 that betrayeth thee? Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, 22 Lord, [11]and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what _is that_ to thee? follow 23 thou me. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what _is that_ to thee? 24 This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. 25 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 would not contain the books that should be written.

[Footnote 1: That is, _Twin_.]

[Footnote 2: Gr. _a fire of charcoal_.]

[Footnote 3: Or, _a fish_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _a loaf_.]

[Footnote 5: Or, _aboard_.]

[Footnote 6: Or, _loaf_.]

[Footnote 7: Gr. _Joanes_. See ch. 1:42.]

[Footnotes 8, 9: _Love_ in these places represents two different Greek words.]

[Footnote 10: Or, _perceivest_.]

[Footnote 11: Gr. _and this man, what?_]

[Footnote a: The precise date of this seventh appearance is not known except that it was after that on the Resurrection Day and before the Ascension.]

Sect. 181. THE APPEARANCE TO ABOVE FIVE HUNDRED[a] ON AN APPOINTED MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE, AND A COMMISSION GIVEN

[Footnote 1: Gr. _all the days_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _the consummation of the age_.]

[Footnote 3: Gr. _demons_.]

[Footnote 4: Some ancient authorities omit _new_.]

[Footnote a: The meeting attended by so large a number as stated by Paul was most probably that which Jesus had appointed (Matt. 28:16), and it could be held on an appointed mountain without attracting the attention of unbelievers.--The Commission in Mark may perhaps be reckoned the same as Matthew's here. A third Commission is given by Luke in Sect. 183. This is what is called by many the Great Commission.]

Sect. 182. THE APPEARANCE TO JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS

1 Cor. 15:7 7 Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles.

Sect. 183. THE APPEARANCE TO THE DISCIPLES WITH ANOTHER COMMISSION

Jerusalem

Luke 24:44-49 |Acts 1:3-8 | 44 And he said unto them, These | 3 to whom he also [3]shewed are my words which I spake unto| himself alive after his passion you, while I was yet with you, | by many proofs, appearing unto how that all things must needs | them by the space of forty be fulfilled, which are written| days, and speaking the things in the law of Moses, and the | concerning the kingdom of God: prophets, and the psalms, | 4 and, [4]being assembled together 45 concerning me. Then opened he | with them, he charged them not their mind, that they might | to depart from Jerusalem, but 46 understand the scriptures; and | to wait for the promise of the he said unto them, Thus it is | Father, which, _said he_, ye written [_see Hos. 6:2_], that | 5 heard from me: for John indeed the Christ should suffer, and | baptized with water; but ye rise again from the dead the | shall be baptized [5]with the 47 third day; and that repentance | Holy Ghost not many days hence. [1]and remission of sins should| 6 They therefore, when they were be preached in his name unto | come together, asked him, all the [2]nations, beginning | saying, Lord, dost thou at this 48 from Jerusalem. Ye are | time restore the kingdom to 49 witnesses of these things. And | 7 Israel? And he said unto them, behold, I send forth the | It is not for you to know times promise of my Father upon you: | or seasons, which the Father but tarry ye in the city, until| hath [6]set within his own ye be clothed with power from | 8 authority. But ye shall receive on high. | power, when the Holy Ghost is | come upon you: and ye shall be | my witnesses both in Jerusalem, | and in all Judea and Samaria, | and unto the uttermost part of | the earth.

[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities read _unto_.]

[Footnote 2: Or, _nations. Beginning from Jerusalem, ye are witnesses._]

[Footnote 3: Gr. _presented_.]

[Footnote 4: Or, _eating with them_.]

[Footnote 5: Or, _in_.]

[Footnote 6: Or, _appointed by_.]

Sect. 184. THE LAST APPEARANCE AND THE ASCENSION

On Olivet between Jerusalem and Bethany

[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities omit _and was carried up into heaven_.]

[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit _worshipped him, and_.]

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON POINTS OF SPECIAL DIFFICULTY IN THE HARMONY

_1. About Harmonies of the Gospels_

We do not know how soon an effort was made to combine in one book the several portrayals of the life of Jesus. Luke in his Gospel (1:1-4) makes a selection of the material and incorporates data from different sources, but with the stamp of his own arrangement and style. He followed, in the main, the order of Mark's Gospel, as is easily seen. But this method is not what is meant by a harmony of the Gospels, for the result is a selection from all sorts of material (oral and written), monographs and longer treatises.

The first known harmony is Tatian's Diatessaron (_dia tessaron_, by four) in the second century (about 160 A.D.) in the Syriac tongue. It was long lost, but an Arabic translation has been found and an English rendering appeared in 1894 by J. Hamlyn Hill. It is plain that Tatian has blended into one narrative our Four Gospels with a certain amount of freedom as is shown by Hobson's _The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem_ (1904). There have been modern attempts also to combine into one story the records of the Four Gospels. There is a superficial advantage in such an effort in the freedom from variations in the accounts, but the loss is too great for such an arbitrary gain. The word harmony calls for such an arrangement, but it is not the method of the best modern harmonies which preserve the differences in material and style just as they are in the Four Gospels.

In the third century Ammonius arranged the Gospels in four parallel columns (the _Sections_ of Ammonius). This was an attempt to give a conspectus of the material in the Gospels side by side. In the fourth century Eusebius with his _Canons_ and _Sections_ enabled the reader to see at a glance the parallel passages in the Gospels. The ancients took a keen interest in this form of study of the Gospels, as Augustine shows.

Of modern harmonies that by Edward Robinson has had the most influence. The edition in English appeared in 1845, that in Greek in 1846. Riddle revised Robinson's Harmony in 1889. There were many others that employed the Authorized Version, like Clark's, and that divided the life of Christ according to the feasts.

Broadus (June, 1893) followed Waddy (1887) in the use of the Canterbury Revision, but was the first to break away from the division by feasts and to show the historical development in the life of Jesus. Stevens and Burton followed (December, 1893) Broadus within six months and, like him, used the Canterbury Revision and had an independent division of the life of Christ to show the historical unfolding of the events. These two harmonies have held the field for nearly thirty years for students of the English Gospels. In 1903 Kerr issued one in the American Standard Version and James one in the Canterbury Revision (1901).

Harmonies of the Gospels in the Greek continued to appear, like Tischendorf's (1851, new edition 1891), Wright's _A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek_ (1903), Huck's _Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien_ (1892, English translation in 1907), Campbell's _First Three Gospels in Greek_ (1899), _A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek_ by Burton and Goodspeed (1920).

The progress in synoptic criticism emphasized the difference in subject matter and style between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel as appears in the works of Huck, Campbell, and Burton and Goodspeed that give only the Synoptic Gospels. Burton and Goodspeed have also an English work, _A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels for Historical and Critical Study_ (1917). In 1917 Sharman (_Records of the Life of Jesus_) gives first a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels with references to the Fourth Gospel and then an outline of the Fourth Gospel with references to the Synoptic Gospels.

Once more in 1919 Van Kirk produced _The Source Book of the Life of Christ_ which is only a partial harmony, for the parables and speeches of Jesus are only referred to, not quoted. But he endeavored to show the results of Gospel criticism in the text of the book. There is much useful material here for a harmony, but it is not a real harmony that can be used for the full story of the life of Jesus. Van Kirk, however, is the first writer to place Mark in the first column instead of Matthew. I had already done it in my outline before I saw Van Kirk's book, but his was published first. It is an immense improvement to put Mark first. The student thus sees that the arrangement of the material is not arbitrary and whimsical, but orderly and natural. Both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order except in the first part of Matthew where he is topical in the main. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels,

## particularly in the Judean (Jerusalem) Ministry.

Slowly, therefore, progress has been made in the harmonies of the Gospels. But the modern student is able to reproduce the life and words of Jesus as has not been possible since the first century. It is a fourfold portrait of Christ that we get, but the whole is infinitely richer than the picture given by any one of the Four Gospels. The present Harmony aims to put the student in touch with the results of modern scholarly research and to focus attention on the actual story in the Gospels themselves. One may have his own opinion of the Fourth Gospel, but it is needed in a harmony for completeness.

_2. Synoptic Criticism_

The criticism of the synoptic gospels has been able to reach a broad general conclusion that is likely to stand the test of time. The reason for this happy solution lies in the fact that the processes and results can be tested. It is not mere subjective speculation. Any one who knows how to weigh evidence can compare Mark, Matthew, and Luke in the English, and still better in the Greek. The pages of the present harmony offer proof enough. It is plain as a pikestaff that both our Matthew and Luke used practically all of Mark and followed his general order of events. For this reason Mark has been placed first on the pages where this Gospel appears at all. But another thing is equally clear and that is that both Matthew and Luke had another source in common because they each give practically identical matter for much that is not in Mark at all. This second common source for Matthew and Luke has been called Logia because it is chiefly discourses. It is sometimes referred to as "Q", the first letter of the German word _Quelle_ (source). Unfortunately we do not have the whole of the Logia (Q) before us as in the case of Mark, though we probably do not possess the original ending of Mark in 16:9-20. But we can at least reproduce what is preserved. Still, just as sometimes either Matthew or Luke made use of Mark, so in the case of the Logia that is probably true. Hence we cannot tell the precise limits of the Logia. Besides, a small part of Mark is not employed by either Matthew or Luke and that may be true of the Logia. But the fact of these two sources for Matthew and Luke seems to be proven.

But there are various other points to be observed. One is that both Matthew and Luke may have had various other sources. Luke tells us (Luke 1:1-4) that he made use of "many" such sources, both oral and written. And a large part of Luke does not appear in the other gospels or at least similar events and sayings occur in different environments and times. Hence our solid conclusion must allow freedom and flexibility to the writers in various ways. We can see for ourselves how Matthew and Luke handled both Mark and the Logia, each in his own way and with individual touches of style and purpose.

One other matter calls for attention. Papias is quoted by Eusebius as saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (or Aramaic) whereas our present Matthew is in Greek. It is now commonly held that the real Matthew (Levi) wrote the Logia first in Aramaic and that either he or some one else used that with Mark and other sources for our present Gospel of Matthew.

It should be added also that there is a considerable body of evidence for the view that Mark wrote under the influence of Simon Peter and preserves the vividness and freshness of Peter's own style as an eyewitness.

One other result has come. It is increasingly admitted that the Logia was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly. The upshot of these centuries of synoptic criticism has brought into sharp outline the facts that now stand out with reasonable clearness. There are many points in dispute still, but we at least know how the synoptic gospels were written, and are reasonably certain of the dates and the authors.

There are many good books on the subject, like Hawkin's _Horae Synopticae_ (second edition), Sanday's _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, Harnack's _Sayings of Jesus_ and his _Date of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts_. My own views appear in my _Commentary on Matthew_ (Bible for Home and School), _Studies in Mark's Gospel_, and _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

_3. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_

It has come to pass that one has to defend the use of the Fourth Gospel on a par with the Synoptic Gospels. The Johannine problem is an old one and a difficult one. It cannot be said that modern scholarship has come to a clear result here, as is true of the Synoptic Gospels. As a matter of fact, the battle still rages vigorously. There are powerful arguments on both sides. A mere sketch of the real situation is all that can be attempted here.

The Gospel and the Epistles are in the same style and can be confidently affirmed to be by the same author. The Apocalypse has some striking peculiarities of its own. There are likenesses in vocabulary and idiom beyond a doubt of a subtle nature, but the grammatical irregularities in the Book of Revelation have long been a puzzle to those who hold to the Johannine authorship. A full discussion of these grammatical details can be found in the leading commentaries on the Apocalypse. A brief survey is given in my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_. The facts are undisputed and have a most interesting parallel in the papyri fragments of some of the less educated writers of the _Koine_ as one can see for himself in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_ or in any other collection.

There are two solutions of the problem with two alternatives in each instance. There are those who roundly assert that the same man could not have written both the Gospel and the Apocalypse. Some of these affirm that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse but not the Gospel. Certainly a "John" wrote the Revelation or claimed it at any rate. Others of this group hold that an inferential Presbyter John (not "the elder" in 2 and 3 John) supposed to be meant by Papias wrote the Apocalypse while some one else wrote the Gospel whether the Apostle John or not.

But a considerable body of scholars still hold that the same man wrote both the Gospel and the Apocalypse, but a different explanation is offered by two groups. One class of writers affirm that John wrote the Apocalypse first before he had come to be at home in the Greek idiom as we see it in the Gospel and the Epistles. We know that John and Peter were fishermen and were not considered men of literary training by the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:14). This explanation is sufficient but for the further fact that the early date of the Apocalypse (about 70 A.D.) is not now so generally held to be true. The later or Domitianic date as given by Irenaeus seems pretty clearly to be correct. So the other group suggest that the books may belong substantially to the same period (the Domitianic date) and that the explanation of the grammatical infelicities in the Apocalypse may be due to the fact that John being on the Isle of Patmos when he wrote did not have the benefit of friends in Ephesus who apparently read the Gospel (John 21:24-25). Besides, the excited state of John's mind because of the visions may have added to the number of the solecisms in the Apocalypse. This view I personally hold as probable. The unity of both Gospel and Apocalypse is denied by some.

So the matter stands as between the Gospel and the Apocalypse. But the Fourth Gospel has difficulties of its own. These relate in part to the

## book in itself. It is true there is a great similarity in language and

style between the narrative parts of the book and the discourses of Jesus. It is affirmed that the writer has colored the speeches of Jesus with his own style or even made up the dialogues so that they are without historical value or at least on a much lower plane than the Synoptic Gospels as objective history. There is something in this point, but one must remember that the Synoptic Gospels vary in their manner of reporting the speeches of Jesus and aim to give the substance rather than the precise words of the Master in all instances. It is at most a matter of degree. There is a Johannine type of thought and phrase beyond a doubt, but curiously enough we have a paragraph in Matthew 11:24-31 and Luke 10:21-23 that is precisely like the Johannine specimens, written long before the Fourth Gospel. One must remember the versatility of Jesus, who could not be retained in any one style or mold. But there are those who admit the Johannine authorship of the Gospel and yet who refuse to put it on the same plane as the Synoptic Gospels. Every one must decide for himself on this point. For myself I see too much of Christ in the Fourth Gospel in the most realistic and dramatic form to be mere invention. We can enlarge our conception of Christ to make room for the Fourth Gospel.

But even so it is urged that the Beloved Disciple cannot be the Apostle John. If not, then the Fourth Gospel ignores the Apostle John,--a very curious situation. It is a long story for which one must go to the able books in defense of the Johannine authorship by Ezra Abbott, James Drummond, W. Sanday, Luthardt, Watkins and many others. The ablest modern attacks are made by Bacon and Wendt and Schmiedel. My own view is given in my _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_.

_4. The Jesus of History_

It is not long since the cry of "Back to Christ" was raised and away from Paul and John. Soon this cry was changed to an appeal to the Jesus of History in opposition to the Christ of Theology. So we had the "Jesus or Christ" controversy (see the Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909). It was gravely affirmed by some that Paul had created the Christ of Christianity and had permanently altered the simple program of Jesus for a social Kingdom and had turned it into a great ecclesiastical system with speculative Christological interpretations quite beyond the range of the vision of the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. It was admitted that the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the Epistles all gave the Pauline view.

To the Synoptic Gospels, therefore, we all went. But the Christ of Paul and of John is in the Synoptic Gospels. In all essentials the picture is the same in Luke as in John and Paul. The shading is different, but Jesus in Luke is the Son of God as well as the Son of Man (see my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_). It was admitted that Matthew gives the picture of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Mark reflects Peter's conception of Jesus and gives Jesus as Lord and Christ (see my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_). And Q (the Logia), the earliest document that we have for the life of Christ and almost contemporary with the time of Christ, gives the same essential features of Jesus as the Son of Man and Son of God (see my article _The Christ of the Logia_ in the Contemporary Review for August, 1919). The sober results of modern critical research show the same figure in the very earliest documents that we possess (Q and Mark's Gospel). The Christ of Paul and of John walks as the Jesus of History in the Synoptic Gospels. We do know the earthly life of Jesus much more distinctly and the research of centuries has had a blessed outcome in the enrichment of our knowledge. Matthew and Luke are the first critics of the sources for the life of Jesus. We see how they made use of Mark, the Logia, and other documents. The Fourth Gospel comes last with knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels.

There are, to be sure, a few men who even deny that Jesus ever lived at all. That was the next step; but this absurdity has met complete refutation. The Christ of faith is the Christ of fact. There is no getting away from the fact of Christ, the chief fact of all the ages, the centre of all history, the hope of the ages. Jesus Christ we can still call him, our Lord and Saviour, and he never made such an appeal to men as he does today in the full blaze of modern historical research. Men are just beginning to take his words to heart in all the spheres of human life. The one hope of a new world of righteousness lies precisely in the program of Jesus Christ for the life of the individual in his private affairs, in his family relations, in his business and social dealings, in his political ideals and conduct. And nations must also follow the leadership of Jesus the supreme Teacher of the race.

The purpose of a harmony is not to teach theology, but to make available for men of any faith the facts in the Gospels concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Each interprets these facts and teachings as he sees the light. We can all acknowledge our debt to modern scholarship for the tremendous contributions made to a richer understanding of the environment into which Jesus came and to a juster appreciation of the real significance of his person and his message. The Gospels are still the most fascinating books in the world for sheer simplicity and beauty. One can first trace the picture of Jesus in the Logia, then in Mark, in Matthew, in Luke, in John. To these he can add the pictures of Christ in the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse.

_6. The Two Genealogies of Christ_

Sceptics of all ages, from Porphyry and Celsus to Strauss, have urged the impossibility of reconciling the difficulties in the two accounts of the descent of Jesus. Even Alford says it is impossible to reconcile them. But certainly several possible explanations have been suggested. The chief difficulties will be discussed.

1. In Matthew's list several discrepancies are pointed out.

_(a)_ It is objected that Matthew is mistaken in making three sets of fourteen each. There are only forty-one names, and this would leave one set with only thirteen. But does Matthew say he has mentioned forty-two names? He does say (1:17) that there are three sets of fourteen and divides them for us himself: "So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations." The points of division are David and the captivity; in the one case a man, in the other an event. He counts David in each of the first two sets, although Jechoniah is counted only once. David was the connecting link between the patriarchal line and the royal line. But he does not say "from David to Jechoniah," but "from David to the carrying away unto Babylon," and Josiah is the last name he counts before that event. And so the first name after this same event is Jechoniah. Thus Matthew deliberately counts David in two places to give symmetry to the division, which made an easy help to the memory.

_(b)_ The omissions in Matthew's list have occasioned some trouble. These omissions are after Joram, the names of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and after Josiah, these of Jehoiakim and Eliakim (2 Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1, 11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34; 24:6). But such omissions were very common in the Old Testament genealogies. See 2 Chron. 22:9. Here "son of Jehoshaphat" means "grandson of Jehoshaphat." So in Matt. 1:1 Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. A direct line of descent is all that it is designed to express. This is all that the term "begat" necessarily means here. It is a real descent. Whatever omissions were made for various reasons, would not invalidate the line. The fact that Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were the sons of Ahab and Jezebel would be sufficient ground for omitting them.

_(c)_ Matthew mentions four women in his list, which is contrary to Jewish custom, viz. Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah. But neither one is counted in the lists of fourteen, and each one has something remarkable in her case (Broadus, Comm. on Matt. _in loco_). Three were guilty of gross sin, and one, Ruth, was of Gentile origin and deserved mention for that reason. This circumstance would seem to indicate that Matthew did not simply copy the genealogical history of Joseph. He did this, omitting what suited his purpose and adding likewise remarks of his own. His record is thus reliable and yet made a part of his own story.

2. A comparison of the lists of Matthew and Luke.

If no list had been given by Luke, no further explanations would be necessary. But Luke not only gives a list, but one radically different from Matthew's, and in inverse order. Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to Jesus; Luke begins with Jesus and concludes with Adam [the son of God]. Several explanations are offered to remove the apparent contradiction.

_(a)_ As early as Julius Africanus it was suggested that the two lines had united in accordance with the law of Levirate marriage. By this theory, Heli and Jacob being stepbrothers, Jacob married Heli's widow and was the real father of Joseph. Thus both genealogies would be the descent of Joseph, one the real, the other the legal. This theory is ably advocated by McClellan, pp. 416 ff., and Waddy, p. xvii. It is argued that Jechoniah's children were born in captivity and so, being slaves, lost both his royal dignity and his legal status. Stress is laid upon the word "begat" to show that Matthew's descent must be the natural pedigree of Joseph, and upon the use of the expression "son (as was supposed) of Joseph." Hence both Joseph's real and legal standing are shown, for by Luke's account he had an undisputed legal title to descend from David. This is certainly possible, although it rests on the hypothesis of the Levirate marriage.

_(b)_ Lord Arthur Hervey, in his volume on the Genealogies of Our Lord, and in Smith's Dictionary, argues that Matthew gives Joseph's legal descent as successor to the throne of David. According to this theory Solomon's line failed in Jechoniah (Jer. 22:30) and Shealtiel of Matthew's line took his place. Luke's account, on the other hand, gives Joseph's real parentage. Matthew's Matthan and Luke's Mattathias are identified as one, and the law of Levirate marriage comes into service with Jacob and Heli. This explanation has received favor with such writers as Mill, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Westcott, Fairbairn. McNeile (on Matthew) considers this the "only possible" view. The chief objection seems to be the most natural meaning of "begat," implying direct descent, and the necessity for two suppositions, one about Shealtiel and another about Jacob and Heli. It is even fairly probable that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are different persons.

_(c)_ The third and most plausible solution yet suggested makes Matthew give the real descent of Joseph, and Luke the real descent of Mary. Several arguments of more or less weight can be adduced for this hypothesis.

(1) The most natural meaning of "begat" in Matthew is preserved. Jesus goes through David's royal line and so fulfils prophecy. It is not elsewhere stated that Mary was of Davidic descent, although presumptive evidence exists in the language of the angel (Luke 1:32) and the enrollment of Mary (Luke 2:5). So Robinson (Revised edition).

(2) The use of Joseph without the article, while it is used with every other name in the list. "The absence of the article puts the name outside of the genealogical series properly so-called."--Godet. This would seem to indicate that Joseph belonged to the parenthesis, "as was supposed." It would read thus, "being son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli." Luke had already clearly stated the manner of Christ's birth, so that no one would think he was the son of Joseph. Jesus would thus be Heli's grandson, an allowable meaning of "son." See Andrews' (new edition) _Life of Our Lord_, p. 63.

(3) It would seem proper that Matthew should give the _legal_ descent of Jesus, since he wrote chiefly for Jews. This, of course, could only be through Joseph.

(4) And it would seem equally fitting that Luke should give the _real_ genealogy of Jesus, since he was writing for all. And this could come only through Mary. If it is objected that a woman's genealogy is never given, it may be replied that women are mentioned for special reasons in Matthew's list, though not counted, and that Mary's name is not mentioned in this list. The genealogy goes back to her father either by skipping her as suggested above and making son mean the grandson of Heli, or by allowing Joseph to stand in her place in the list, as he would have to do anyhow. On the whole, then, this theory seems the most plausible and pleasing. So practically Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Robinson, Alexander, Godet, Weiss, Andrews (new edition, p. 65), Broadus, and many recent writers.

But Bacon (Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Hastings D. B. and Am. J. of Theol. Jan., 1911) says that nearly all writers of authority abandon any effort to reconcile the two pedigrees of Jesus save as the effort of Christians to give "His Davidic sonship rather than His actual descent." See Machen's survey of negative criticism, on the subject in Princeton Theol. Review (Jan., 1906). Barnard (Hastings D. C. G.) admits two independent accounts, but sees no solution, but Sweet (Int. St. Bible Encyl.) accepts the view that Matthew gives the real genealogy of Joseph and Luke that of Mary. Plummer (Comm. on Luke) thinks it incredible that Mary's genealogy should be given by Luke.

_6. The Probable Time of the Saviour's Birth_

Every one now understands that the accepted date of our Lord's birth is wrong by several years. The estimates of the true date vary all the way from one to seven years B.C. There are various data that fix the year with more or less certainty, but none of them with absolute precision. They do, however, agree in marking pretty clearly a narrow limit for this notable occurrence, B.C. 6 or 5.

1. The death of Herod the Great is relied on with most certainty to fix the year of Christ's birth. The rule of Archelaus and Antipas demands B.C. 4. Josephus mentions an eclipse of the moon which occurred shortly before he died. Ant. XVII, 6, 4. This eclipse is the only one alluded to by Josephus, and fixes with absolute certainty the time after which the birth of Jesus could not have occurred, since, according to Matt. 2:1-6, Jesus was born while Herod was still living. The question to be determined would be the year of this eclipse. Astronomical calculations name an eclipse of the moon March 12 and 13, in the year of Rome 750, and no eclipse occurred the following year that was visible in Palestine. Josephus (Ant. XVII, 8, 1), says that Herod died thirty-seven years after he was declared king by the Romans. In 714 he was proclaimed king, and this would bring his death counting from Nisan to Nisan, as Josephus usually does, "in the year from 1st Nisan 750 to 1st Nisan 751, according to Jewish computation, at the age of seventy" (Andrews). Herod died shortly before the Passover of 750, then, according to the eclipse and the length of his reign. Caspari contends for January 24, 753, as the date of Herod's death, because there was a total eclipse of the moon January 10. So he puts his death fourteen days later. Mr. Page (_New Light from Old Eclipses_) argues for the eclipse that occurred July 17, 752, as the one preceding Herod's death. He thinks that this makes unnecessary the subtraction of two years from the reign of Tiberius on the theory that Tiberius was contemporary ruler with Augustus for two years. But he finds difficulty in lengthening Herod's reign so long, and his theory has gained no great acceptance as yet. Our present era makes the birth of Christ in the year of Rome 754, and is due to the Abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the Sixth Century. Hence it is clear that if Herod died in the early spring of 750, Jesus must have been born _at least_ four years before 754, the common era, and likely in the year 749.

2. It has been inferred by some that Jesus was at least two or three years old when Herod slaughtered the infants in Bethlehem, Matt. 2:16. Thus the year would be put two years further back to the end of 747 or beginning of 748. But this is not demanded by the "two years" of Matthew, for Herod would naturally extend the limit so as to be sure to include the child in the number slain, and a child just entering the second year would be called "two years" old by Jewish custom. No more definite note of time comes from this circumstance, save that the massacre probably took place some months before Herod's death, which fact would bring the Saviour's birth back some time into the year 749.

3. The appearance of the "star in the east" (Matt. 2:2). This, of course, was before Herod's death, and would agree in time with the slaughter of the children, if the star be looked upon as a supernatural phenomenon, and not the wise men's interpretation of a natural conjunction of planets. Kepler first suggested that, as there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 747, to which Mars was added in 748, this conjunction might have been the bright star that led on the wise men. See Wieseler, _Synopsis_, p. 57. Kepler had also suggested that a periodical star or a comet might have joined the constellation. The Chinese records preserve the account of the appearance of a comet in the spring of 749. Either of these theories is fascinating in itself, especially to those minds that prefer a natural explanation of anything that looks miraculous. Both phenomena are possible in themselves, but they hardly meet the requirements of the record in Matthew. (1) The word used is _aster_, star, and not _astron_, a group of stars. (2) Rev. C. Pritchard, whose calculations have been verified at Greenwich (Smith's Dic.), has shown that those "planets could never have appeared as one star, for they never approached each other within double the apparent diameter of the moon." So Ideler's hypothesis that the wise men all had weak eyes seems rather feeble. (3) The year 747 would conflict slightly with other evidence for Christ's birth that favors 749, although Wieseler, p. 53, note 4, contends that the star first appeared to the wise men two years before their visit, and a second time on their visit to Bethlehem. (4) Besides, the star is said to have stood over "where the young child was," v. 9. If it were a natural star it would have kept going as they went, and would not have stopped till they stopped. Even then it would appear as far away as ever from Bethlehem. It seems best, therefore, to admit the existence of a miracle here, and hence gain nothing from the visit of the Magi to establish the date of the Saviour's birth, save that it was not long before the slaughter of the infants, and would at least agree with the date 749. See Broadus, Comm. _in loco_.

4. The language of the heavenly host in Luke 2:14 is urged by some as fixing the birth at a time when there was universal peace throughout the world. The closing of the temple of Janus in the time of Augustus is also adduced, but it is not certainly known when it was closed apart from 725 and 729. It was intended to be closed at the end of 744, but was delayed on account of trouble among the Daci and Dalmatae. See Greswell i. 469. Nothing specific can be obtained from this fact, save that there was a time of comparative quiet in the Roman world from 746 to 752. There was a hush in the clangor of war when Jesus was born.

5. The entrance of John the Baptist upon his ministry gives us another note of time. See Luke 3:1 f. John emerged from the wilderness seclusion in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. Augustus died August 29, 767. Adding fifteen years to this, the fifteenth year of Tiberius would begin August 29, 781. John was of a priestly family and so could naturally enter upon his work when thirty years of age. Thirty years subtracted from this gives 751, as the date of John's birth. But that is too late by two years to agree with the other date. Here, however, the Roman histories come to our help. Tacitus, Ann. 1, 3: "Tiberius is adopted by Augustus as his son, and _colleague in empire_." Vell. Pat. 2, 121; "At the request of Augustus, Tiberius was invested with equal authority in all the provinces." So Suetonius Aug. 97 and Tib. 21. It is clear, then, that Tiberius reigned jointly with Augustus about two years before he assumed full control of the empire at the death of Augustus. Luke could have used either date, but Tiberius' power was already equal to that of Augustus in the provinces two years before his death. Luke would naturally use the provincial point of view. Taking off the two years from the joint reign of Augustus, we again come to the year 749, as John was born six months before Jesus. So if John was born in the early part of the spring, Jesus would have been born in the summer or fall of 749.

6. The age of Jesus at his entrance upon his ministry, Luke 3:23. "And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age." So most modern scholars, taking the language in the obvious sense. Origen refers it to the beginning of a new life, by the second birth of baptism, after his spiritualizing fashion. The Authorized Version has it: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age," applying the "beginning" to the period of thirty years. McClellan argues that it means "about thirty years, beginning"; that is, a little the rise of thirty years. The Revised Version seems to be preferable and the only doubt would be as to what is included in the phrase "about thirty years." It has been variously argued that Jesus was from one to three years younger or older than thirty. It seems more reasonable to give the words the meaning that he was just about thirty, a few months under or over. Apparently this fact explains the idiom. The argument that Jesus had to be exactly thirty years old because the priest had to be so, when he entered upon his work, has no great force. For Jesus was not a priest save in a spiritual sense. John had been preaching no great while when Jesus was baptized by him and so entered upon his public ministry. If John began his ministry when he was thirty years old in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, then Jesus's ministry would begin about six months later. His birth would then come in the latter part of 749, unless John was born in the latter part of 748, when it would be earlier in the year.

7. The building of the temple of Herod gives a further clue to the date of Christ's birth. In John 2:20, the Jews say, "Forty and six years was this temple in building." Josephus tells us in one place that Herod began rebuilding the temple in the fifteenth year of his reign, War. I, 21, 1, and in another that he did so in the eighteenth year of his reign, Ant. XV, 11, 1. In the account of Herod's death, Ant. XVII, 8, 1, he used two dates for his reign, according as he counted from his declaration as king by the Romans 714, or the death of Antigonus 717. Eighteen and fifteen would both be correct, according as he reckoned from the one date or the other. Eighteen added to forty-six and both to 714 would make 778. It was at the first Passover in his ministry that this expression is used. It has been probably six months since his baptism. If thirty and a half years be taken from 778, his birth would be thrown back to the year 747, unless the forty-six years be taken as completed, when it would be 748. So Robinson. But this does not quite agree with the other notes of time we have. Many modern harmonists count the eighteen years from 717, and so bring the whole number, adding forty-six, down to 780, or, if the years are complete, 781. Thirty and a half from this would give the autumn of 749 or 750. This is done because Josephus usually reckons Herod's reign from the death of Antigonus, 717. On the whole it seems clear that Josephus is wrong in the War. It is common enough to find Josephus in one passage contradicting what he has said elsewhere. The temple was begun the year that the Emperor came to Syria, as is plain from Josephus. According to Dio Cassius, LIV, 7, this visit was made in B.C. 20 or 19. Correcting Josephus by himself and by Dio Cassius we thus again get B.C. 5 as the probable year of the birth of Christ. See Schuerer, _History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_, Div. I., Vol. I., p. 410.

8. The census of Augustus Caesar mentioned in Luke 2:1 f., furnishes the last note of time for this event. This subject is involved in a great many difficulties, and for a full discussion, the reader is referred to Ramsay's _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem_, and his _Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_ (Chap. XX) and to my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Every statement made by Luke in 2:1-7 was once challenged. Every one is now shown to be correct.

(1) It used to be said that no census was ever taken by Augustus, but heathen writers mention three, in 726, 746, 767. One of these, 746, may be the one here mentioned, which was delayed for various reasons, or which was executed slowly in the distant provinces. But it is not necessary that the phrase "all the world" should be pressed to its literal meaning, though this is more natural. Nor does the argument from silence prove that no other general census was taken by Augustus. But Ramsay has triumphantly vindicated Luke and the general census under Augustus by proof from the papyri that Augustus inaugurated a periodical census every fourteen years from B.C. 8 on. The second occurred A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). See Ramsay's _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem_, and _Bearing of Recent Discovery on Trustworthiness of the New Testament_ (Chap. XX) and my _Luke the Historian_ (Chap. XX). We have only to think that there was delay in the carrying out of the census in Palestine to bring this date down to B.C. 6 (or even 5).

(2) It is not a "taxing," but an "enrollment" (Rev. Ver.) that was taken. There was a taxing later (Acts 5:37). And if it were done while Herod was king, Augustus could not have taxed Judea without Herod's consent. But Herod was not now in good form with Augustus.

(3) This helps to explain another objection that the enrollment would not have included Judea anyhow, because it was not yet a province, but a kingdom. But it is not likely that Herod would have displeased Augustus by refusing such information if it was desired. Tacitus asserts that the _regna_, the dependent kingdoms, were included in the census taken by Augustus.

(4) Hence, also, it is natural that the enrollment should have taken place according to the Jewish and not according to the usual Roman method, because Herod would wish it to be in accordance with the customs of his kingdom. So every one went to his own city. We now know from numerous papyri that in Egypt the family went to the home city. The Jews were used to enrollment by tribes and that was allowed. See Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 268, and Ramsay's _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem_, p. 108.

(5) We now have to meet the objection that Quirinius was not governor till ten years later, A.D. 6, when a taxing did occur. (See Acts 5:37.)

It is now possible to give a real solution of this problem. Luke is now shown to be wholly correct in his statement that Quirinius was twice governor, and that the first census took place during the first period. A series of inscriptions in Asia Minor show that Quirinius was governor of Syria B.C. 10-7 and so twice governor of Syria (second time A.D. 6; Josephus, Ant. XVIII, 1:1). See Ramsay, _Bearing of Recent Discovery_, pp. 273-300, and my _Luke the Historian_, pp. 127-9. Tertullian (_adv. marc._ iv, 19) says that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria B.C. 9-6. But we now know that Varus was controlling the internal affairs of Syria while Quirinius was leader of the army. Luke is therefore quite accurate in his statement about Quirinius being twice governor of Syria. The _Lapis Tiburtinus_ has _iterum Syriam_ about Quirinius. Ramsay has cleared up this famous historical puzzle and has completely vindicated Luke.

Few subjects have excited as much interest, even needless curiosity, as the date of the birth of the Saviour. But it is noticeable that by the masses of Christians more interest is taken in the day of Christ's birth than in the year. The Christmas festivities and the natural desire to make that the birthday of Jesus cause this widespread interest in December 25. Not only is it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty the day of the month, but the time of the year also is equally uncertain. The chief thing that appears proved is that December 25 is not the time, since the shepherds would hardly be in the fields at night with the flocks, which were usually taken into the folds in November and kept in till March. The nights of December would scarcely allow watching in the mountain fields even as far south as Bethlehem. And besides, the long journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem would hardly be made by Joseph and Mary in winter, the rainy season. McClellan argues for December 25, but his arguments are not convincing. The ancients had various days for Christ's birth: May 20 (Clement of Alexandria), April 20, December 25, January 5. Tertullian and others even say that the day of his birth (December 25) was kept in the register at Rome. But chronologists attach little weight to this testimony, since the same tradition puts the birth of John, June 24; the annunciation of Mary, March 25, and Elizabeth's conception, September 25--the four cardinal points of the year. If one might hazard an opinion, it would be that the birth of Jesus occurred in the summer or early in the fall of 749 or of 748, that is B.C. 6 or 5. Turner (Chronology, Hastings D. B.) reaches B.C. 6 as the probable year of the birth of Jesus though he did not have the new light on the census and on Quirinius which confirms it. Hitchcock (Hastings D. C. G.) saw the bearing of the periodical census that called for B.C. 7-5, but did not yet know the discovery about Quirinius. Armstrong (Chronology New Testament, Int. St. Bible Encycl.) is less certain about the precise year.

_7. The Feast of John 5:1, and the Duration of Our Lord's Ministry_

It seems almost impossible to decide with certainty what feast is alluded to in John 5:1. One can only speak with moderation where everything is so doubtful. Various feasts have been suggested as solving the problem.

1. The Feast of Dedication has been proposed by Kepler and Petavius. But this view has met with no great amount of favor, for there is too short an interval between the first Passover and December, when it occurred. It might be a later Feast of Dedication, but this feast was not one of the great feasts and would hardly have drawn Jesus all the way from Galilee to attend it. He did attend this feast once (John 10:22), but he was already in Judea at this time, having come up to attend the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2, 14). So Robinson, Clark, etc. So this feast seems to be ruled out of the question.

2. The Feast of Tabernacles is advocated by Ebrard, Ewald, Patritius. It is very unlikely that the Feast of Tabernacles after the first Passover could be meant, as the Saviour did not return to Galilee for some time afterwards. He could hardly have come back so soon to Jerusalem. But the Feast of Tabernacles after the Passover of John 6:4 is mentioned later, John 7:2 f., which Jesus attended, it seems, because he was hindered from going up to the previous Passover by the murderous designs of the Jews. It is possible that the feast of John 5:1 may have been the Feast of Tabernacles after a Passover not mentioned, and so would come after the second Passover of his public ministry. But we do not know that Jesus attended any other Feast of Tabernacles save the one in John 7:2, which he may have done because he missed the preceding Passover.

3. The Feast of Purim, first suggested by Kepler, has had great favor with modern harmonists, but apparently more on sentimental than on scholarly grounds. Meyer says, "Without doubt it was Purim." But it is by no means so certain as Meyer would have us believe. _(a)_ Meyer relies on John 4:35 and 6:4 to show that this was the Feast of Purim just before John 6:4. But the expression, "Say not ye, There are yet four months and then cometh the harvest?" may be, and probably is a proverbial saying indicating the usual length of time between sowing and reaping, which, as a matter of fact, was about four months. Hence nothing can be determined by this note of time. And, besides, the four months could precede the Passover just as well as Purim, because the sowing lasted a month or so. _(b)_ The Feast of Purim occurred a month before the Passover. Is it at all likely that two circuits of all Galilee were made in the meantime, besides much work of other kinds? See Luke 8:1 and Matt. 9:35-38. The three general circuits throughout Galilee, besides the mission of the twelve and a large part of their training, the general statements about the Master's work of preaching and healing, require an expansion rather than a contraction of the time for this period of his ministry. It seems then quite unreasonable, when once the mind takes in this enlarged conception of the missionary work of Jesus, as recorded by the Synoptic Gospels, to limit it to the amount of work mentioned by John, since he omits much of the early ministry, because, it would seem, the others are so full just here. _(c)_ The Feast of Purim, moreover, was observed at home in the synagogues, and not by going to Jerusalem. See Esther 9:22 and Jos. Ant. xi. 6, 13. But "the multitude" (John 5:13) seems to imply (Robinson) a concourse of strangers at one of the great festivals. _(d)_ It seems hardly probable, besides, that Jesus would go to any feast just a month before the Passover and come back to Galilee and not go to the Passover itself (John 6:4). Least of all would he do this in the case of Purim. _(e)_ The man who was healed at this feast was healed on the Sabbath (John 5:9), and this occasioned the outburst among the people. But the Feast of Purim was never celebrated on the Sabbath, and when it came on a Sabbath it was postponed. See Reland, Antiq. Sacr. 4, 9.

4. Pentecost is held to be the feast here alluded to by many early and some later writers, such as Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, etc. Norris makes it the Pentecost after the first Passover, but to do this, has to crowd into this short interval Christ's first Judean ministry, the journey through Samaria together with the first part of his Galilean ministry. So this idea has little weight. McClellan argues that the allusions of Jesus in John 5:17-47, "infallibly point to Pentecost," meaning the Pentecost after a second Passover that is not mentioned. He further contends that this best suits the chronological arrangement and the term "a feast of the Jews." This view is certainly possible and cannot be positively disproved, although it is not so "infallibly" clear as McClellan imagines.

5. The Passover has always met with many adherents, being the second Passover in the Saviour's ministry and making four in all (John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1). An unnamed Passover may exist in the ministry even if not referred to here. The arguments in favor of this interpretation are the most satisfactory. We cannot consider them as absolutely conclusive, yet the Passover meets all sides of the case better than any of the other feasts. _(a)_ The plucking of ears from standing grain by the disciples (Luke 6:1) would indicate a time after the Passover and before Pentecost. This incident appears to have happened after the feast mentioned in John 5:1. _(b)_ It is fairly implied (John 5:1) that the feast took Jesus to Jerusalem. The Passover would more likely be the one to lead him there. It is expressly stated that he attended two Passovers and a special reason is given for his not attending a third. If there was another Passover in his ministry, this would naturally be the one. _(c)_ This suits best the hostility manifested at this feast, which would have time to become acute (Broadus' Comm. on Matt.) and break out with increased vigor in Galilee and prevent his attending the next Passover (John 6:4; 7:1). _(d)_ If this Passover be a second Passover of the ministry, sufficient time is afforded for the great Galilean ministry without artificial crowding. His ministry would be long enough to allow the great work recorded as done by him. Only two serious objections can be urged to this idea. (1) It is objected that the article would be used with "feast," if the Passover were thus mentioned as _the_ feast. But to this we can reply: _(a)_ The article is sometimes omitted when the Passover is meant (Matt. 27:15; Mark 15:6). _(b)_ The absence of the article proves nothing whatever one way or the other. No conclusion can be drawn for or against the idea of the Passover. _(c)_ The article does occur in many manuscripts, including the Sinaitic, and is put in the margin of the Revised Version. So nothing can be gained against this theory here. (2) The chief objection is that Jesus would not have remained so long away from Jerusalem, a year and six months, from the Second Passover till the Feast of Tabernacles after the Third Passover. But _(a)_ we do not know that he did not attend any other feast in that time, for silence proves nothing; and _(b)_ a good reason is given for his failure to attend the Third Passover, which may have applied to the others, if he did not go, _viz._, the desire of the Jews to kill him (John 7:1).

Hence it is natural that there should be a variety of opinions as to the length of the Saviour's ministry, varying all the way from one to four years, leaving out mere guesses based on five and more Passovers. McKnight argues that the ministry may have lasted five or more full years, since all the Passovers of Christ's ministry may not be mentioned.

(1) The _Bi-paschal_ theory makes the time of the public life of Jesus one year, allowing only two Passovers to the Gospel of John. Browne in his _Ordo Saeclorum_ advocates this view. But the words, "the Passover," in John 6:4 must be omitted, and for this there is not enough documentary evidence. If this could be done, Westcott thinks Browne would make out a good case. But with the present text, his view cannot be entertained.

(2) The _Tri-paschal_ theory finds only three Passovers in the life of Christ. Hence the public work of Jesus would be from two to two and a half years in length. This view is quite possible, as is shown in the Harmony. These writers usually make the feast of John 5:1 Purim before the Passover of John 6:4, or Pentecost after it.

(3) The _Quadri-paschal_ theory contends for four Passovers and a ministry of from three to three and a half years. This theory follows from making John 5:1 a Passover or Purim before or Pentecost or Tabernacles after an unnamed Passover. This seems to be the more probable length of the Saviour's public work on earth. How short a space was even this to compass such a marvellous work. The ministry of Jesus seems crowded beyond our comprehension. It would be certain that the Saviour's public life lasted about three years and a half, if it was admitted that John 5:1 referred to a Passover. Various writers seek to find an allusion to the three years of the Saviour's ministry in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6), but this application of the parable is by no means certain, since three might naturally be used as a round number. But there can very well have been a passover not mentioned. All we can say is that we know that the ministry of Jesus was two and a half years in length with the probability of three and a half.

_8. The Four Lists of the Twelve Apostles_

It is interesting to compare the four lists of Jesus' chosen apostles as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.

Mark 3:16 f. Matthew 10:2 f. Luke 6:14 f. Acts 1:13 f. 1. Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter 2. James Andrew Andrew James 3. John James James John 4. Andrew John John Andrew 5. Philip Philip Philip Philip 6. Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas 7. Matthew Thomas Matthew Bartholomew 8. Thomas Matthew Thomas Matthew 9. James the son James the son James the son James the son of Alpheus of Alpheus of Alpheus of Alpheus 10. Thaddeus Thaddeus Simon the Zealot Simon the Zealot 11. Simon the Simon the Judas the Judas the Cananaean Cananaean brother of brother of James James 12. Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot

Let us examine the names here given.

(1) The lists are given some time after the selection was made, and hence represent a later grouping according to later developments in this inner circle. The primacy of Peter in these lists does not mean necessarily that he was the acknowledged leader at first. See discussion under (4) below. The point to note here is that we are not to think of Peter as the formal leader of the Twelve before the death of Christ. Jesus was himself that leader.

(2) One mark of an apostle was that he should have been with the Lord from the baptism of John until the day that he was received up (Acts 1:21 f.). Perhaps no great stress is to be laid on any exact time here, provided it began in the time of John. An apostle must know the Lord. Hence Paul received the vision of Christ. We have some knowledge of seven of these apostles before this time. If we infer from John 1:41 that John followed the example of Andrew in finding his own brother, it was not long till James was a disciple as well as John, Andrew, and Peter. Philip and Nathanael are soon added to the list (John 1:43 f.). Later Matthew hears the call of the Saviour, too (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:13 f). Of the other five we have no knowledge previous to this occasion. Jesus had "found" them by the same insight that led to his other selections. He chose Judas, though knowing that he was a devil.

(3) Observe the three groups of four, headed by Simon Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alpheus, respectively. The great variety in the arrangement of the other names makes this uniformity significant. It seems clear that there are three recognized groups among the apostles (Bengel, Broadus, Clark). Each group has the same persons in every list, although there is such a variety in the order. In the first group Matthew and Luke have the same order, while Mark and Acts agree. In the second group Mark and Luke have a like order, while Matthew and Acts agree in putting Matthew at the end of this group. In the third group Matthew and Mark agree exactly, while Luke and Acts are identical save the dropping out of Judas Iscariot from the list in Acts because of his apostasy and death. No great importance can be attached to the precise order within the groups since Luke, in the Gospel and Acts, gives a different arrangement in the first and second groups.

(4) Observe also that Simon Peter not only stands at the head of his group, but at the head of all the groups, while Judas Iscariot is always at the bottom till he drops out entirely. Simon finally occupied a position of precedence of some sort. He was one of the inner circle of three that was so close to the Saviour's heart. Perhaps it was this, rather than any notion of primacy in authority or power. He was the spokesman because of his natural impetuosity. The question as to who should be greatest among the apostles illustrates the spirit of rivalry about precedence that existed among them. In the October, 1916, Journal of Theol. Studies, Dr. A. Wright argues that the critical text in Mark 14:10 means "Judas Iscariot the first of the Twelve." The _Koine_ did sometimes use _heis_ as an ordinal (see Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 96, and my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 671 f.). But the disputes among the Twelve show that they themselves considered Jesus only as leader till his death. See my article on "The Primacy of Judas Iscariot," the Expositor (London) for April, 1917, and one by Rendel Harris in the June, 1917, issue, and Wright's reply in the November, 1917, number.

(5) There are among the Twelve three pairs of brothers--Simon and Andrew, James and John, James the son of Alpheus and Judas the brother of James. The first two pairs form the first group of the Twelve. It is, however, uncertain whether Judas is the brother or the son of James. The Greek is ambiguous, James's Judas. The Revised Version translated it "Judas son of James," but the Epistle of Jude begins "Judas a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." But the Jude of the Epistle and the Judas of the Twelve were hardly the same. Cf. Broadus, Comm. on Matt., p. 216.

(6) There are some apparent discrepancies in the names in the various lists. Bartholomew occurs in every list, but is generally understood to be another name for Nathanael. Thaddeus is also called Judas the brother of James. Matthew and Mark give Thaddeus, and Luke in Gospel and Acts gives Judas the brother of James. It was a very common circumstance for one to have two names. Lebbeus, given in some MSS. in Matthew and Mark, is only a marginal explanation of Thaddeus. Both are terms of endearment. Matthew and Mark again call Simon the Cananaean, while Luke in the Gospel and Acts speaks of him as Simon the Zealot. But "Zealot" is simply a translation into Greek of the Aramaic "Cananaean." Jesus gave the other Simon the name "Cephas," which was translated into the Greek "Peter," meaning rock. He is called by all three names in the New Testament. Matthew likewise had another name, Levi, and Thomas was also called Didymus, which was a Greek translation of Thomas, meaning "twin."

_9. The Sermon on the Mount_

Do Matthew and Luke record the same discourse? Let us consider the several theories on this subject. My own view will be stated last.

1. Some hold that the two discourses are entirely distinct in time, place, circumstances and audience. The arguments for this theory usually presented are these.

_(a)_ The time of delivery of the two sermons appears to be different. Matthew gives the sermon before his call (Matt. 9:9), while Luke precedes his sermon by the call of the twelve. Hence Matthew's discourse comes quite a while before Luke's in the early Galilean ministry. But it may be well replied that, inasmuch as Matthew's arrangement in ch. 8-13 is not chronological, but topical, it is entirely possible, even likely, that the same arrangement should prevail in ch. 5-7. It is perfectly natural that Matthew, writing for Jewish readers and about the Messianic reign, should give at the beginning of his account of that reign the formal principles that rule in this new state of affairs, as proclaimed by Jesus on a later occasion. In the early part of the ministry of Jesus, besides, the hearers would hardly be prepared for so advanced and radical ideas. Besides, Matthew makes no note of time whatever for this discourse.

_(b)_ The place appears to be different. One is on a mountain (Matt. 5:1), while the other is on a plain (Luke 6:17). Hence the one is called by Clark the Sermon on the Mount, and the other the Sermon on the Plain. Miller (Int. Stand. Bible Encyclopaedia) is uncertain whether Matthew and Luke report the same discourse and so discusses also Luke's "Sermon on the Plain." But his argument is not convincing. If it is necessary that "plain" here shall mean a place away from a mountain, down in a valley, this would seem to refer to a different place. McClellan seeks to show that Luke uses "and" in 6:17-20 by way of anticipation. He presents for effective grouping events that happened after Jesus came down out of the mountain before he gives the sermon delivered to the whole body of disciples up in the mountain. This is possible, but another interpretation is much more likely. The plain here is really simply "a level place" (Rev. Ver.). So then the two accounts of Matthew and Luke will harmonize quite well. Jesus first went up into the mountain to pray (Luke 6:12) and selected and instructed the Twelve. Afterwards he came down to a level place on the mountain side whither the crowds had gathered, and stood there and wrought miracles (Luke 6:17). He then went up a little higher into the mountain where he could sit down and see and teach the multitudes (Matt. 5:1). Matthew gives the multitudes as the reason for his going up into the mountain. By this arrangement any discrepancy between "sat" in Matthew and "stood" in Luke disappears. Waddy has given an admirable arrangement of the material at this point in Note C, p. xix. Many writers affirm that the tradition mentioned by Jerome, making the Horns of Hattin the place where the Sermon on the Mount was delivered, suits this explanation exactly. There is a level place on it where the crowds could have assembled. It is not necessary to insist that this mountain is the Mount of Beatitudes, nor need we contend, as Robinson does, that the mountain must be very close to Capernaum.

_(c)_ The audience is different. Matthew (4:25) states that his audience was composed of "great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan," while Luke (6:17) says that there was "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." Matthew says (5:1) also that "his disciples came unto him." Hence both assemblages were composed of great multitudes from many regions besides many of his disciples, but in neither case is Jesus said to address himself to any save his disciples, his followers (Matt. 5:1 and Luke 6:20). So in both accounts the Saviour seems to withdraw a little from the great outside crowd of curiosity seekers. But the multitudes also must have heard something of what he said, for they were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28). Andrews well shows that the audience in Matthew were not mostly Jews (according to Kraft), and the audience in Luke mostly heathen. Matthew omits Tyre and Sidon, but he had already mentioned Syria (4:24), which includes Tyre and Sidon. Neither list may be complete. Hence nothing can be made out of Luke's omission of Galilee, Decapolis, and beyond Jordan. Great multitudes from the same general regions are alluded to as being present.

_(d)_ The contents are radically different. It is objected by Alford, Greswell, etc., that Luke omits large portions of what Matthew has so that Luke has only thirty verses, while Matthew has one hundred and seven. But this leaves out of consideration the several large portions of the same matter which Luke has placed elsewhere, or which Jesus repeated on other occasions (cf. Matt. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31). Jesus often repeated his sayings on other occasions as all teachers do and ought to do. Neither evangelist gives a complete report of this wonderful discourse. So Matthew omits some things which Luke records (cf. Matt. 5:12 with Luke 6:23-6; Matt. 7:12 with Luke 6:31-40). Nor need we be surprised that Luke, writing generally for all Christians, omits large portions towards the beginning of the sermon that were designed especially for Jews (see Matt. 5:17-27; 6:1-18). These Matthew would be sure to record. Luke adds four woes to the beatitudes. It is unnecessary to remark upon minor variations of language, since the gospels manifestly aim to give the sense of what the Saviour said and not the _verbatim_ words. The variations in the Synoptic reports of the sayings of Jesus add much to the interest of the narratives. Moreover, to offset these variations, which admit of explanation, it ought to be remembered that the two discourses begin alike and end alike, that they have a general similarity in the order of the different parts, and that they show a general likeness and often absolute identity of expression.

So these differences all melt away on careful comparison, and it is not proved that there are two distinct sermons.

2. Another theory holds that the two sermons are distinct, but spoken on the same day, and near together. So Augustine, who is followed by Lange. The further points of this theory are two. _(a)_ The one (Matt.) was spoken before the choice of the Apostles, to the disciples alone, and while Jesus was sitting on the mountain. _(b)_ The other (Luke) was spoken after the choice of the Apostles, to the multitudes, and standing upon the plain. It is not hard to see that these points do not solve the question. In Matt. 7:28 we are told that the multitudes were astonished at his teaching and in Luke 6:20 that "he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said." So this distinction vanishes. The question of the mountain and the plain has been already discussed, and another more probable explanation suggested. It is only a conjecture that the discourse of Matthew was before the appointment of the Twelve. This theory has had no great following.

3. Wieseler holds that Matthew has simply brought together detached sayings of Jesus on different occasions and does not mean to present the whole as one discourse; Luke's account being only one of the discourses used by Matthew. But this violates the evident notes of place and audience and surroundings by which Matthew gives local color and cast to the entire discourse. See Matt. 5:1 and 8:1. The case of the grouping of the miracles in chapters 8 and 9 is not parallel, since there Matthew does not state that they occurred on one occasion. The fact that various portions of this discourse are repeated elsewhere by Matthew is immaterial, because this was a common habit of Jesus in his discourses. Votaw in his exhaustive and able discussion of the Sermon on the Mount in the extra volume in the Hastings D. B. admits the possibility of this hypothesis, but considers it far less probable than the historical reality of the Sermon as recorded by both Matthew and Luke. Moffatt (Encycl. Biblica) considers it "a composition rather than an actual address," while Bacon (Sermon on the Mount) admits only what is also in Luke. Adeney (Hastings D. C. G.) holds to the essential integrity of the address in Matthew.

4. Both Matthew and Luke give substantially similar accounts of the same discourse. In that case we have a good illustration of the use of the Logia in Matthew and Luke. Most of the arguments for this interpretation have been mentioned in rebuttal of the previously mentioned theories. _(a)_ This is the most natural explanation in view of the large volume of similar matter in both, in the beginning, progress, and close of the discourse. It is always best to give the Scripture the most natural and manifest setting, when possible. _(b)_ This theory is the most probable one, since it is hardly likely that Jesus would again make the same sermon to the same audience, and under the same circumstances. _(c)_ There are no objections to this theory that do not admit of a probable explanation. See the discussion above. The omissions and additions in each case suit the specific purpose of the writer. The apparent contradictions, when studied carefully, blend into a harmonious whole. Hence we seem to be justified in maintaining the identity of the discourses recorded by Matthew and Luke. For a careful outline of this matchless discourse see Broadus on Matthew. Stalker, _The Ethics of Jesus_, has a very able exposition of the teaching.

_10. The Combination of Luke and John_

We now have to deal with the most perplexing question in harmonistic study, the proper disposal of the mass of material furnished by Luke in 9:51-18:14. McClellan discusses ten schemes, pushes them all aside, and then suggests another which is no more convincing and equally complicated. Nothing can be attempted here but a presentation of the chief points in this endless discussion. All the principal plans for arranging this part of Luke proceed on one or the other of the following ideas:

1. Some hold that this portion of Luke is neither orderly nor chronological. Hence many of the incidents, here recorded as apparently belonging to the last six months of the Saviour's ministry, in reality are to be placed earlier. They are put here as a sort of summing up of things not mentioned elsewhere. So Robinson and others. In favor of this theory it is urged that Luke here speaks of some things that Matthew and Mark put before the third Passover, such as the healing of a demoniac (Luke 11:14-36) and the blasphemy following. But it may be well replied.

_(a)_ It is not at all clear that we have here the same events that are recorded in Matthew and Mark. Similar miracles were often wrought in the Master's work and similar sayings were frequently repeated on similar or different occasions. This was a common habit with him, as we have heretofore seen.

_(b)_ This portion of Luke is his distinctive contribution to the ministry of Christ in addition to his account of the nativity. He has condensed his account of the withdrawals from Galilee, apparently to make room for the description of another part of Christ's work. Matthew and Mark almost confine themselves to the ministry in Galilee, while Luke thus devotes the bulk of his narrative to what seems to be a later ministry, after Jesus has left Galilee. It is hardly likely that this account should be a mere jumble of scattered details.

_(c)_ Especially is this unlikely in view of Luke's express statement (1:3) that he was going to write an orderly narrative. In no real sense could this be true, if this large section is dislocated in time and order of events.

2. Others refer the entire narrative (Luke 9:51-18:14) to the last journey of the Saviour to Jerusalem to the Passover and see a triple reference to the same journey arguing for triplications in Luke. Others prefer to understand it as meaning the journey to the Feast of the Tabernacles or Dedication. Some would combine this idea with the unchronological plan noticed above. In favor of this journey being continuous and the last one to Jerusalem, the following arguments are adduced:

_(a)_ The language of Luke 9:51, "when the days were being completed that he should be received up," implies that the end was drawing near, and that he was setting his face towards Jerusalem to meet it. This is true without doubt, for Wieseler's interpretation of "received up" as meaning Christ's reception by man is entirely too forced. The expression points to the end of Christ's earthly career. But what does the vague expression, "the days were being completed," mean? Does it have to mean only a few weeks? May it not include as much as six months? For we know that Jesus had been instructing his disciples on this very subject expressly and pointedly, and at the Transfiguration he had spoken of his "decease." Henceforward this was the uppermost subject in his mind. So the interpretation is correct, but the inference is not necessary. This journey in Luke 9:51 need not be either just before the Passover or the Dedication. It could be as early as Tabernacles and be thus described.

_(b)_ It is insisted that this is Jesus' final departure from Galilee, the one described by Matthew and Mark. No place is allowed for a return to Galilee after the departure in Luke 9:51. Robinson urges that Luke 9:51 naturally means a final departure from Galilee. But it may simply mean that he left it as a sphere of activity, not that he never entered Galilee again. And then Luke 17:11 expressly says that Jesus went "through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." This means more than going on the border between the two countries, as McClellan argues. He went through some portions of Samaria and Galilee. In order for McClellan to carry out his scheme he has to resort to the artificial device of referring part of John 10:40 to the departure from Galilee, and the other half to the Perean ministry after a diversion of considerable length into Samaria and back into Galilee. So the effort is not convincing to place all the material in this large section of Luke in one last journey to Jerusalem.

3. The combination of Luke's narrative with that of John. Wieseler was the first to point out a possible parallel between Luke and John. John gives us three journeys,--the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2 ff.), the journey to Bethany at the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17 f.), the final Passover (John 12:1). Luke likewise three times in this section speaks of Jesus going to Jerusalem, 9:51; 13:22; 17:11. Hence it would seem possible, even probable, that their journeys corresponded. If so, John 7:2-11:54 is to be taken as parallel to Luke 9:51-18:14. This plan is followed by various modern scholars.

According to John's chronology, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), at the Feast of Dedication (10:22), and at the Passover (12:1). Just after the Feast of the Dedication we find him abiding beyond Jordan, where John had baptized (John 10:40). From this point he comes to Bethany near Jerusalem at the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17), whence he withdraws to a little town called Ephraim in the hills north of Jerusalem (John 11:54). Here he abides awhile with his disciples away from his enemies till he goes to the Passover. Such is John's outline of these last six months of the Saviour's life.

_(a)_ But how is all this to be reconciled with the statement of Luke (17:11) that Jesus went through Samaria and Galilee? If Jesus went back to Galilee, John would have mentioned it, we are told. Not necessarily, not unless it fell in with his plan to do so. Hence no conflict need exist between Luke and John. Luke says he went through Galilee and John permits it by the break in his narrative at 11:54. Various points in the six months have been suggested as the point when the return to Galilee was made. The most natural point is from Ephraim, whither he had withdrawn (John 11:54). It was not far to go up through Samaria and join in Galilee (Luke 17:11) the pilgrims from his own country who were in the habit of going to the Passover through Perea, to avoid passing through Samaria. This supposition is not improbable, as Robinson and McClellan urge, but very natural; it makes Luke and John both agree, and allows Luke 9:51 to mean that Jesus then left Galilee as a field of operations. Various other theories are suggested for this return to Galilee, but none of them appear as fitting as this one. It was just before the Passover, when such a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem would be made.

_(b)_ One other point needs to be considered. The theory we hold makes the journey in Luke 9:51 identical with the one in John 7:2-10, _viz._, to Tabernacles. Many hold such identity to be impossible because of apparent contradictions in the narratives. Andrews makes three objections against this identity: (1) That the Lord refused to go with his brethren (John 7:6). But it was his brothers who were not favorable to him that he refused to go with. He simply wished to avoid publicity. His face was set (Luke 9:51) all the time, but he was not going with them. (2) That the manner of the going is unlike; the one in John is secret, while the one in Luke is public. But the secrecy in John may merely mean the avoidance of the caravan routes and so through Samaria (Luke). The messengers sent before were not to herald his coming to gather crowds simply, but to make ready for him. It was needed, since the Samaritans saw that his face was as if he were going to Jerusalem. (3) That he went rapidly according to John and slowly according to Luke. He does, according to John, appear in Jerusalem before the feast is over, but Luke does not make him move slowly. Nor is it necessary to connect the sending of the seventy (Luke 10:1 ff.) with this journey. It belongs rather to the interval between Tabernacles and Dedication. So the secret going of John and the going through Samaria of Luke agree. John explains, 7:10, that Jesus rejected the advice of his brothers. This theory is held irrespective of this being the final departure from Galilee. It is not necessary to fill out every detail in this programme and show where Jesus was between Tabernacles and Dedication. The main outlines remain clear and harmonious and are fairly satisfactory. This combination of Luke and John preserves the integrity of both narratives and fills up a large blank that would otherwise exist in these closing months of the Saviour's life. Upon the whole, therefore, this view seems decidedly preferable, though nothing like absolute certainty can be claimed in regard to the question.

We do not know what special source Luke had for 9:51-18:14. Some of it may have come from the Logia (Q). Hawkins (_Oxford Studies_, pp. 55 ff.) calls it "the Travel Document." Burton _(Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem)_ suggests "The Peraean Document" and thinks that Luke may have drafted it early out of oral material. But at any rate it is a great and characteristic portion of his Gospel and adds greatly to our knowledge of Christ.

_11. Did Christ Eat the Passover?_

To put this question in another form, it would be, On what day of the month was Jesus crucified? For the crucifixion occurred on the same Jewish day as the eating of the meal recorded by all four Evangelists. Nearly all agree that the crucifixion occurred on Friday and the meal was eaten the evening before, our Thursday, but the beginning of the Jewish day, counting from sunset to sunset. But what day of the month was it? The Passover feast began on the 15th Nisan, the lamb being slain in the afternoon of the 14th. But the day of the week would vary with the new moon. If Jesus ate the regular Passover supper, he was crucified on the 15th Nisan. If he ate an anticipatory meal a day in advance and was himself slain at the hour of killing the paschal lamb, he was crucified on the 14th Nisan. In that case he did not really eat the Passover supper at all. So then we must seek to determine the truth about this matter, because express statements are made about it in the Gospels.

1. Some sentimental views of the question need to be disposed of first. A great controversy once raged in the early churches about the Passover.

_(a)_ In the latter part of the second century some of the churches of Asia Minor, largely composed of Jewish Christians, kept up the Passover on the ground that Jesus had eaten it the night before his crucifixion. Polycarp, the disciple of John, expresses the persuasion that Jesus ate the Passover.

_(b)_ But some of the churches were afraid of this example and its application to the discussion about the relation of the Mosaic laws to Christianity. So they took the position that Jesus did not eat the Passover himself, but as the Paschal Lamb, was crucified at the time the lamb was slain. He was our Passover. The Greek churches now hold this position, while the Latin churches hold that Jesus ate the Passover. But those arguments are purely subjective and do not affect the question of fact. Hence we waive this old-time controversy and come to the testimony of the Gospels themselves.

2. The testimony of the Synoptists, Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The evidence they give is abundant and explicit to the effect that Jesus ate the regular Paschal Supper on the evening after the 14th Nisan.

_(a)_ Jesus predicted that his death would occur during the Feast of the Passover. See Matthew 26:2, "Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified." See also Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1, where the fact is alluded to. Passover is used in the general sense of the feast of unleavened bread, as Luke explains. The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover meal, beginning the next morning and lasting a week. But the one term was used to include the other. The Passover was expanded to mean the entire feast that followed, and _vice versa_.

_(b)_ It is true that the Jewish authorities decided not to put Jesus to death during the feast (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2). But this decision was reached not because of any compunctions of conscience in the matter, but because they were afraid of a tumult among the people, owing to the great crowds, many of whom were friendly to Christ. But so soon as Judas offered his services, their fears vanished and they proceeded with their murderous designs (Matthew 26:14; Mark 14:11). The rulers did expedite matters at the crucifixion that the bodies might not be exposed on the Sabbath. But they had often tried to slay Jesus on the Sabbath heretofore. Public executions did take place during the feasts (Deut. 17:12 f.).

_(c)_ The Synoptists flatly say (Matthew 26:17, 20; Mark 14:12, 17; Luke 22:7, 14) that on the first day of unleavened bread Jesus sent Peter and John from Bethany into the city to make preparations for eating the Passover, and that on the evening of the same day he ate it with his disciples. Luke calls it "the hour." Now, the first day of unleavened bread was the 14th Nisan. There is no question about this. Josephus speaks of the feast lasting eight days. The lamb of the supper being slain on the afternoon of this day, it was regarded as the beginning of the feast. Besides, Mark and Luke end the whole matter by saying that on this day they sacrificed the Passover. Jesus himself calls it the Passover (Luke 22:15). It is useless to say that Jesus ate the Passover a day in advance. This could not be done, especially by one to whom the temple authorities were hostile. Equally useless is it to say that the Jews ate the Passover a day too late. If a mistake was made about the new moon, they would hardly keep the Passover on two different days, nor would Jesus be apt to make a point about the matter.

3. The testimony of John. If we had only the evidence of the Synoptists, no serious trouble would ever arise on this question. Strauss has strenuously urged that John is on this point in hopeless conflict with the other Evangelists, since he makes Jesus eat the Passover on the evening after the 13th Nisan (Wednesday), and not the evening after the 14th (Thursday). This idea has gained a foothold among many able modern writers who see a clear contradiction between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Some of these evidently do so because they hold that the Paschal controversy in Asia Minor arose from this supposed conflict of John with the Synoptists, and that this shows John's Gospel to have been in existence when that controversy began. It is not worth while to maintain that John in