This difference being thus satisfactorily explained, the existence of the second difference is of course accounted for. If John is right in enumerating several Passovers, he is right in narrating what took place at Jerusalem on those occasions. But, more than this, we find in the other Evangelists several things in which they too seem to allude to earlier visits and labours of Jesus in the Holy City. So the language in which our Lord laments over Jerusalem, as having rejected his efforts, Matth. 23, 37. Luke 13, 34; and, further, his intimate relations with the family of Lazarus, which imply a longer acquaintance than a few weeks, Luke 10, 38. 39; comp. John 11, 1. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

PART I.

EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD Of our lord.

§§ 1-13.

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

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

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

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

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

1. According to Matth. 2, 1-6, Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and not long before his death. Herod died in the year of Rome (A. U.) 750, just before the Passover; see Jos. Antiq. 17. 8. 1. ib. 17.9.3. This has been verified by calculating the eclipse of the moon, which happened just before his death; Jos. Ant. 17. 6. 4. Ideler Handb. of Chronol. II. p. 391 sq. If now we make an allowance of time for the purification, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the remaining there till Herod was dead,-for all which not less than six months can well be required,-it follows, that the birth of Christ cannot in any case be fixed later than the autumn of A. U. 749.

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

1

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

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

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

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

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

years, at the least, after the actual birth of Christ. This era was first used in historical works by the Venerable Bede, early in the eighth century; and was not long after introduced in public transactions by the Frank kings Pepin and Charlemagne.

In respect to the time of the year when Jesus was born, there is still less certainty. John the Baptist would seem to have entered upon his ministry in the spring; perhaps when the multitudes were collected in Jerusalem at the Passover. The crowds which followed him imply that it was not winter. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, probably six months later, would then have occurred in autumn. It could not well have been in the winter, for John was still followed by crowds; nor does a winter seem to have intervened. If now we may assume, as is most probable, that John entered on his office when he had completed his thirtieth year; then the time of his birth was also the spring; and that of our Lord, six months later, was the autumn. Archbishop Newcome, referring to Lardner, has the following remark: "Jesus was born, says Lardner, between the middle of August and the middle of November, A. U. 748 or 749. We will take the mean time, October 1." See Lardner's Works, Vol. I. p. 370, 372. Lond. 1835.-There is, on this point, no valid tradition. According to the earliest accounts, the sixth of January, or Epiphany, was celebrated by the eastern churches, in the third and fourth centuries, as the festival of the birth and baptism of Jesus; Cassian. Collat. X. c. 2. In the western churches, after the middle of the fourth century, the twenty-fifth of December (Christmas) began to be kept as the festival of Christ's nativity; this day having been fixed upon, partly at least, as being the then current winter solstice. Thus, as late as the time of pope Leo the Great, (ob. 461,) there were many in Rome, "by whom this day of solemnity was regarded as honourable, not so much on account of the nativity of Christ, as because of the rising of the new sun, as they called it." Leon. Magn. Serm. XXI. c. 6. See the Church Hist. of Neander, Vol. I; also that of Gieseler, Vol. I. The observance of this latter festival (Christmas) spread into the East; while that of the Epiphany, as the baptismal day, was adopted in the West.

§ 10. The visit of the Magi at Bethlehem naturally follows the presentation in the temple; since, after the jealousy of Herod had been once roused, this public presentation could not well have taken place. Joseph and Mary return from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, distant five English miles, where they had now been detained for nearly two months. Luke indeed does not allude to this return (2, 39); but neither does he mention the flight into Egypt.`

§ 13. The genealogy in Luke is inverted, for the sake of more convenient comparison. The words "which was the son," so often repeated in the English Version, is an addition by the translators merely to fill out the connection.

I. In the genealogy given by Matthew, considered by itself, some difficulties present themselves.

1. There is some diversity among commentators in making out the three divisions, each of fourteen generations, v. 17. It is, however, obvious, that the first division begins with Abraham and ends with David. But does the second begin with David, or with Solomon? Assuredly with the former; because, just as the first begins from Abraham, so the second also is said to begin from

David. The first extends to David, and includes him; the second extends until the carrying away into Babylon, i. e. to an epoch and not to a person; and therefore the persons who are mentioned as coeval with this epoch (about the time of the carrying away, v. 11), are not reckoned before it. After the epoch the enumeration begins again with Jechoniah, and ends with Jesus. In this way the three divisions are made out thus:

2. Another difficulty arises from the fact, that between Joram and Ozias, in v. 8, three names of Jewish kings are omitted, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amariah; see 2 K. 8, 25 and 2 Chr. 22, 1.—2 K. 11, 2. 21 and 2 Chr. 22, 11.—2 K. 12, 21. 14, 1 and 2 Chr. 24, 27. Further, between Josiah and Jechoniah in v. 11, the name of Jehoiakim is also omitted; 2 K. 23, 34. 2 Chr. 36, 4. comp. 1 Chr. 3, 15. 16. If these four names are to be reckoned, then the second division, instead of fourteen generations, will contain eighteen, in contradiction to v. 17. To avoid this difficulty, Newcome and some others have regarded v. 17 as a mere gloss," a marginal note taken into the text." This indeed is in itself possible; yet all the external testimony of manuscripts and versions is in favour of the genuineness of that verse. It is better therefore to regard these names as having been customarily omitted in the current genealogical tables, from which Matthew copied. Such omissions of particular generations did sometimes actually occur, "because they were wicked and impious," according to the Rabbins; see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Matth. 1, 8. A striking example of an omission of this kind, apparently without any such reason, is found in Ezra 7, 1-5, compared with 1 Chr. 6, 3-15. This latter passage contains the lineal descent of the high priests from Aaron to the captivity; while Ezra, in the place cited, in tracing back his own genealogy through the very same line of descent, omits at least six generations. The two accounts stand thus: