A close inspection of Matthew's Gospel will shew that he did not intend to mark the true suc cession of events. He gives us no definite expres sions to assist in arranging his materials in their proper order. Very frequently he passes from one occurrence to another without note of time ; some times he employs a r6re, sometimes 11, Teas ipa pals IxcluaLs, ev TtP KaLp439 Or ev Tf7 6pa, e.,z9Ev. Rarely is he so minute as to use Icte0' ihrlepas gE (xvii. t). In short, time and place seem to have been subordinated to the grand object which lie had in view, viz., the lively exhibition of Jesus as the Messiah promised in the O. T. With this design, lie has often brought together similar facts and discourses. Although, therefore, Kaiser founds upon the phrases we have adduced a con clusion the very reverse of ours, we believe that Matthew did not propose to follow chronological order. The contrary is obviously implied.
Mark again is still more indefinite than Mat thew. Even the general expressions found in the first Gospel are wanting in his. He uses Kai . .
7rciXLv, Kal rdXtv, iv inivaes Tais ht.cipazs Facts themselves, not their true succession, were the object of his attention. Chronological order is not observed in his Gospel, as is now generally admitted. Yet Cartwrig,ht, in his Harmony, pub lished about 1627, makes Mark's arrangement the rule of his method.
With regard to Luke, some infer from the use of xaBeNs at the beginning of his Gospel, that he intended to arrange everything in its true chrono logical place. Such was the opinion of Beza, adopted by Olshausen. But an examination of the work itself, which is unconnected and un chronological, shews another object. He uses Kai 1-yevEro, lad, and Se. His expressions of time are indeterminate. Indeed he frequently passes from one transaction to another without any note of time ; or gives META rairra, yt'cirt2,v ljp,Ep6.)v. All that can be fairly deduced from the word KaOcEljs is, that Luke designed to pursue a systematic plan, connecting events together according to the predominating idea with which he set out, which was not the chronological principle.
John's Gospel has so little in common with the rest that it cannot be conveniently drawn into a harmony with them. It is obvious that his arrangement is not chronological. In general he carefully notes whether one, two, or three days elapsed between certain events.
The Gospels are fragmentazy. They do not profess to record all the sayings and doings of Jesus, but give a selection from the materials of his life. The basis of each was oral tradition, combined in some cases with the use of documents. A spiritual idea, not the principle of accurate sequence, guided and controlled both their selec tion of materials and the form it assumed in their hands. Each evangelist had his own plan and object. Matthew had Jews and Jewish Christians in view ; and therefore he places the facts of the Gospel in connection with the revela tion of the Old Testament. Mark designed to give prominent facts in the life of Jesus, accompanied by minute and vivid details. Luke, who had become acquainted with the Pauline circle and type of ideas, meant to present such particulars as should show most convincingly that the man Jesus came to give light to mankind, and not merely to Israel after the flesh. Thus each evangelist had his pecu
liar purpose and method. The outward sequence of events was always subordinate to a higher idea. Of John this may be said pre-enzinently.
Existing data are insufficient to enable the inquirer to compose a harmony in chronological order. As times and places have been left inde terminate, it is hopeless to conceive of a diatessaron accurate in all particulars. The problem may continue to exercise the ingenuity of critics, with out furnishing an adequate reward for the time and labour bestowed on it. Diversity in unity pervades the Gospels, and all that can be properly done is to illustrate both. If it can be demonstrated that the evangelical memoirs do not contradict one another in any important particular ; but that they present the same facts and discourses in a different light, according to the object the writers had in view, and perhaps their own idiosyncracies, we may be satisfied with the conclusion. The attempts of ill judging advocates to force them into agreement in every minute point cannot be reprobated too much ; for a degree of discrepancy, while violating no rational theory of inspiration, shows indepen dence and veracity. \Ve do not believe that all variations between them can be fairly reconciled ; but that circumstance does not weaken our faith in the general credibility of the narratives. In our view, a complete harmony belongs to the range of the impossible.
2. What was the duration of our Lord's mi nistry ? This is a question upon which the opinions of the learned have been much divided ; and which cannot be settled with conclusive certainty. In order to resolve it, it is necessary to mark the dif ferent Passovers which Christ attended. Looking to the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we should infer that he was present at no more than two ; the first at the time of his baptism, the second immediately before his crucifixion. But in John's Gospel three Passovers at least are named during the period of our Lord's ministry (ii. 13 ; vi. 4 ; xi. 55). It is true that some writers have endeavoured to adapt the Gospel of John to the other three, by reducing the Passovers mentioned in the former to two. So Priestley, Vossius, and Mann. In order to accomplish this, it was con jectured that 7rcio-xo, in ch. vi. 4, is an interpola tion ; and then that eopH denotes some other Jew ish festival. Bishop Pearce went so far as to conjecture that the entire verse has been interpo lated. For these rash speculations there is no authority. The received reading must here be followed (LUcke's Commentar fiber 7ohannes, dritte Aufl., zweiter Theil, s. o4). In addition to these passages, it has been thought by many tha.t another Passover is referred to in John v. 1, where although rdoxa does not occur, eop-rli is supposed to denote the same feast. But this is a subject of dispute. Irenmus is the oldest authority for ex plaining it of the Passover. Many have adopted the same opinion ; as Luther, Calovius, Grotius, Jansen, Scaliger, Cornelius a Lapide, Lightfoot, Lampe, Paulus, Kinnoel, Siisskind, Klee, Am mon, Greswell, Hengstenberg, Robinson.