Harmony of the Gospels

Front matter

B/~ i

LIBRAEY

OF THE

Preface

Dr. Carpenter, in his " Introduction to the Geography of the New Testament," has explained his plan for a Harmony of the Four Gospels, giving directions for the construction of such a Harmony, which have been observed in the arrangement of the following pages.

According to prevailing views on the subject, represented in the Harmony of Archbishop Newcome, the ministry of our Lord, beginning with his baptism, comprehended four Passovers, or extended through something more than three years ; and in settling the succession of events, recorded by the first three evangelists, the order of Luke deserves a general preference. Dr. Carpenter understands the length of the ministry to have somewhat exceeded one year, including but two Passovers ; and prefers the order of Matthew, where it differs from that of Mark and Luke.

These questions open an argument of great extent. A few general statements relating to it are all that would here be in place.

The early writers of the church, who have alluded to this subject, are understood to have been almost unanimously of the opinion maintained by Dr. Carpenter. Authorities to this point may be seen in Mann de Veris Annis Christi Natali et Emortuali. Dissert. 2a, cap. 12°. ; Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. III. Part ii. p. 63 ; and Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on Daniel, Part I. chapter 11. Irenaeus indeed, in the second century, is an exception, extending the ministry to nearly twenty years, and maintaining his opinion from Luke in. 23, John vm. 57•

IV PREFACE.

Eusebius, in the fourth century, was, as far as appears, the first to start the theory of four Passovers, though he understood the events recorded by the first three evangelists, from the commencement of our Lord's preaching, to have been included within one year.

The phenomena of the Gospels themselves may seem to favor the opinion, which limits the ministry of Jesus to a year and some months. Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention but one Passover ; viz. that at which he was crucified. John (π. 23.) distinctly mentions another. By the advocates of the theory of four Passovers, he is understood to speak of yet two others ; viz. in v: 1, and vi. 4. He says, (v. 1.) " There was a feast of the Jews ; " not defining what feast. For any evidence afforded by the verse, or, apparently, from any other source, it is quite as likely to have been a Pentecost. That it has been supposed to have been a Passover, is perhaps owing to the article being prefixed in some copies to the word rendered feast ; the feast, by eminence, being interpreted to be no other than the Passover. But if the various reading were a good one, it would sustain no satisfactory argument of the kind, and the weight of authorities, in this case, is with the text of the common edition.

To reconcile John vi. 4, with that opinion of Christian antiquity, which included but two Passovers in the ministry, different methods have been proposed. Dr. Priestley thought the words, το πύαχα, the Passover, to be an interpolation, and this not only on conjecture, but on the ground, that ancient writers, who were in search of such texts, do not appear to have found the words in their copies. Bishop Pearce conceived the whole verse to be spurious, arguing that it breaks the continuity of the narrative, that nothing in the chapter has relation to any feast, and that John would hardly have repeated an explanation which he had already given, (n. 13.) The strong objection to these solutions of the difficulty is, that they resort to unauthorized alterations of the text.

The method of Dr. Carpenter may appear not only free from objection, but demanded by all the circumstances of the

PREFACE. V

case. The Gospel of John, apparently consisting, as it has been long observed to do, of distinct sections, each of which has its date,* there would be the less danger of mistake in a single deviation from a chronological arrangement of the series of these sections. The narrative in John vi. 1-21, has such a close resemblance to that in Matthew xiv. 13-32, that it seems almost impossible to doubt that both evangelists are recording the same succession of events. These events are said by John (vi. 4.) to have occurred when a Passover was nigh, and by Matthew they are placed in a closely connected history of transactions immediately preceding the last Passover, viz. that of the crucifixion ; transactions, which might occupy about a month. It seems therefore to be not without good grounds, that Dr. Carpenter, making, as usual, the two passages parallel, recommends, that, to arrange the sections of John in the order of time, the third section, composed of the sixth chapter, be placed between the fifth and sixth, which are divided at chapter xi. 54- 55. The references in vi. 4, and xi. 55, are then to the same Passover, and John is found to speak of only two. This argument is strengthened by the consideration of the great difficulty there is in supposing so striking a miracle as that of the feeding of the five thousand to have been wrought before our Lord's presence at the Feast of Tabernacles. (John vn. 2-6.) Upon the question, which evangelist is to be followed in settling the chronological succession of events, the first obvious thought is, that Matthew and John, apostles of Jesus, and eye-witnesses of the later events, at least, which they record, are more likely to have intended to observe the order of time, than Mark and Luke, who were not his apostles, and do not appear to have been his attendants. Nor does the force of this remark seem to be abated by Luke's declaration (i. 3.) of his purpose to write κα&εξής, in order ; for the word means only

* The first section comprehending chapters ι — iv. (dated n. 13.) ; the second, chapter v. (v. 1.) ; the third, chapter vi. (vi. 4.) ; the fourth, chapters vn — x. 21. (vn. 2.) ; the fifth, chapter x. 22. — xi. 54. (x. 22.) ; the sixth, chapters xi. 55 — xxi. (xi. 55.)

VI PREFACE.

methodically, in distinction from less carefully digested accounts, by no means necessarily implying, that the method which he undertook to pursue was that of time. Moreover, except in the case of John vi. which has been explained above, the order of this evangelist is not inconsistent with that of Matthew. So that the plan proposed offers the great advantage of adopting, for the chronological order of events in a Harmony, the order in which they are recorded by both of the only evangelists, who are known to have had opportunity to record from their own observation.

Proceeding on these principles, Dr. Carpenter places (pp.20- 25 of this volume) the first Passover, recorded by John, with the previous connected events, next subsequent (John i. 32, 33.) to the baptism of Jesus, recorded by the first three evangelists. After the baptism and temptation, Matthew relates nothing till (iv. 12.) the departure of Jesus into Galilee, on hearing of the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Now that John the Baptist was not in prison at the time of the transactions recorded in the third and fourth chapters of John's Gospel, appears from John in. 24, and iv. 1. This portion of John's Gospel, then, is to be placed before the departure into Galilee. Again, this departure seems to have been subsequent to the Feast of Tabernacles ; because, after the miracles with which Jesus astonished " all Galilee " (Matthew iv. 23, 24.) on his arrival there, his brethren could have had no pretext for speaking of his proceeding " in secret," as they are represented to have done at the time of that feast in John vn. 4 ; besides that we have no means of accounting for Matthew's omitting to mention that Jesus went to a Feast of Tabernacles, had this occurred after Matthew takes up so minutely, at iv. 12, the history of his public ministry. Accordingly, before Matthew's account of this departure, Dr. Carpenter has placed John's mention of the Feast of Tabernacles, vn. 2 ; and as from that point the narrative of John appears unbroken as far as x. 21, and there is nothing to object to the arrangement, the extract from John is continued to that point, (pp. 26-39.) The period herein accounted for, besides the Feast of Tabernacles,

PREFACE. Vll

embraces an earlier feast (v. 1.), which, on this theory, was a Pentecost ; our Lord accordingly appearing to have " fulfilled all righteousness," in being present at Jerusalem at every great festival during his ministry ; viz. at the Passover in March or April succeeding his baptism (John π. 23.) ; the Pentecost, in May (v. 1.); the Tabernacles, in September (vn. 2.) ; and • the Dedication, in November or December (x. 22.) According to the common hypothesis, out of twelve great festivals, which occurred between our Lord's baptism and his crucifixion, he kept but five at the holy city.

The narrative of Matthew, beginning (iv. 12.) with the departure of Jesus into Galilee, after the Feast of Tabernacles, appears to be uninterrupted as far as chapter x. which records the mission of the twelve with their instructions, (pp. 40-81.) Now if the Feast of Dedication, mentioned by John (x. 22.), had taken place at any time between these two events, we cannot account for Matthew's omitting to mention it. And as, for the same reason, it cannot well be placed between Jesus's hearing of the death of John (Matthew xiv. 13.) and the crucifixion Passover, it is naturally referred to the time, when Matthew, with other apostles, was absent from Jesus. John, indeed, from the accuracy of his relation, may seem to have been with him at that feast ; but it is not natural, nor have we any authority, to suppose, that all the apostles rejoined him at the same time ; and if Thomas and others (xi. 16.) were with him not long after, it was not till Jesus had gone " away again beyond Jordan," after the feast, and " there abode." (x. 40.) The narrative of Matthew, accordingly, is followed from the departure into Galilee, after the Feast of Tabernacles, to the mission of the twelve. After this, at a time when Matthew was probably absent, is placed John's account of Jesus's journey to Jerusalem to the Feast of Dedication, followed by the events connected with-it by that evangelist (pp. 87-91.) as far as xi. 55., where he introduces a new date. Next (after an arrangement, in Matthew's order, of events, which occurred near, both before and after, the mission of the twelve and the Dedication Feast, pp. 82- 86, 91 - 110,) comes the succession of

Vlll PREFACE.

events from Jesus's feeding of the five thousand, detailed by Matthew in a closely connected narrative, from xiv. 13, down to xxr., which begins the crucifixion week. (pp. 110-154.) It was remarked, that the scheme proposed by Dr. Carpenter, and adopted in the following pages, offers the advantage of pursuing the order of both those evangelists, who were also apostles of our Lord. An examination of the table of chapters will show to what extent this has been done. Some of the few apparent deviations are not such in reality. The passages in Matthew iv. 17 (page 40), and x. 2, he. (page 74), are but transferred a little from their place for the sake of giving a more convenient continuity to the language, the historical order remaining unaffected. Matthew xiv. 3, he. (page 40), and xiv. 6, &lc. (page 107), relate events introduced by the evangelist himself parenthetically, and professedly out of the order of time, the aorist, properly rendered in our version by the pluperfect tense, being used. In this Harmony they are inserted where they best explain what precedes and follows. John xii. 2 — 8 (page 191), reserved from page 155, to be made parallel with Matthew xxvi. 6, &lc, appears to have been introduced by John early, instead of late, among the events which occurred at Bethany during the last week, the mention of Bethany (John xn. 1.) causing it to be anticipated by a connexion of place.* The same may, perhaps, be said of Matthew xxi. 12, 13 (page 160), which records an event apparently dated by Mark (xi. 12, 15.)'on the second day of Jesus's appearance at Jerusalem, instead of the first ; though it may admit of a question, whether the order of Matthew should not here rather be observed. Matthew xxvi. 30, is placed (page 204) after xxvi. 35, because it clearly presents part of the same scene with what precedes, while any other disposition of it, with its parallels, would either indicate two visits to the Mount of Olives, or create an inconvenient chasm in the language and

*This, however, is a much agitated question among the Harmonists, some favoring the idea of two unctions, others understanding the place assigned by John to indicate the true time.

PREFACE. IX

sense in Luke xxn. 40, and John xvin. 1. (p. 205.) Again, John xiii. 36, he. (p. 203), which relates but a different incident of the same scene described in the following chapters, is placed after those chapters, in this volume, to harmonize with the order of the three other evangelists. Three cases only occur, then, of what can properly be accounted deviation from the historical order of either Matthew or John ; viz. those of John ch. vi. (p. Ill), which has been explained at length ; Matthew vin. 14, &c. (p. 44). and Matthew xn. 1, &ic. (p. 24.)

It may be doubted whether, in either of these latter cases, a different order requires to be substituted for that of Matthew, though the editor, having undertaken to exhibit the plan of Dr. Carpenter, was not at liberty to make any change. In determining the place to which the former passage, recording the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, should be referred, Dr. Carpenter (Geog. P. n. § 21.) appears to attach some importance to the relation of Mark to Peter, as authorizing in this instance a preference of Mark's chronology ; but it is not easy to see why a rule, deduced from this circumstance, if applicable at all, is not to be received to a much wider application. Dr. Priestley (Observations, Sect. xn. § 2.) lays stress on Mark's saying (i. 21. 29-31.) that the cure was performed the sabbath after (i. e. next after) Jesus's arrival at Capernaum ; but this it does not distinctly appear that Mark has said. If it was on the first sabbath after his arrival, that Jesus " entered into the synagogue and taught," which is not an unquestionable construction of Mark's words, still it would not be ascertained that the visit to the synagogue there mentioned, is the same with what is indicated in i. 23, 29. Michaelis argues (VoL III. Part i. p. 84.) that Matthew iv. 25. -vin. 17. records but the events of one day, the same day. on which Mark also (i. 29.) relates the cure of Peter's mother-in-law (with the cure of the demoniac (i. 23.), not mentioned by Matthew) to have taken place ; and arranging the series of its events, he rejects the order of Mark and Luke for that of Matthew ; and Marsh (Part ii. p. 69.) agrees with him in referring all the events h

X PREFACE.

there recorded to one day, and understanding them to have taken place according to Matthew's arrangement. It may be added, that though Matthew's account of this miracle precedes his account of his call to be an apostle, nothing is more probable than that, being an inhabitant of Capernaum, and dispensed from his duty as publican on the sabbath, he listened to the discourse which he so particularly records, and was a witness of the remaining wonders of the day ; wjfile, on the other hand, as to one of these (Matthew vm. 2.), Mark (i. 40.) gives no note of the time of its occurrence, and Luke (v. 12.) appears to have been even ignorant of the place.

The walk through the corn-fields, (Matthew xn. 1.) is dated by Luke (vi. 1.) £v αάββατω dtvisgongonoj, rendered in our version, " on the second sabbath after the first." This (after Wetstein and Storr) is understood by Dr. Carpenter, who disposes the passages accordingly, to signify the first sabbath of the second month, the Passover being in the first month. But the phrase, which is not elsewhere found, is not improbably not genuine, the last word being omitted from some good manuscripts and versions. At all events, it still costs much pains to the critics, and must be owned to be of too unsettled sense to be a sufficient foundation for any argument. Michaelis (Vol. III. Part i. p. 88.) understands the epithet to denote a particular part of any sabbath, or rather of the preceding day, and not the part of the year when the specified sabbath occurred. And even that the plucking of ears of corn supposes a different season of the year from that intervening between the Feast of Dedication and the death of John the Baptist, where Matthew appears to place it, is not perhaps entirely clear. Barley was sown in October. The harvest, which was preceded a full month by the first reaping, is placed by some authorities as early as the vernal equinox ; and moreover, it was not full-formed kernels, but ears, perhaps in the milk, (στάχυες, the same word which is used Mark ιν. 28, in distinction from the full corn in the ear,) which the disciples are

represented to have plucked and eaten. These thoughts

are thrown out with much diffidence, the editor having

PREFACE. XI

met with nothing in any writer, which goes to countenance them. But if they be allowed any force, there will be the less reason for assigning to the incident related in Matthew xn. 1 - 8, a different date from that, (in

the month of February, and not certainly early in that month,) to which this evangelist appears to determine it, by the place where it is introduced. It is true that Matthew might not have returned to Jesus, at the time to which he refers, for the mission of the Twelve is related in the second preceding chapter. But the words " at that time " (xn. 1.) connected with what follows, are, for this evangelist, somewhat uncommonly precise; and, at least, if other events recorded in this connexion are to be understood, for the reasons above given, to have taken place in and near the month of February, the placing of this incident in the midst of them, sufficiently indicates that Matthew was not sensible that the plucking of ears of corn would seem an act then out of season. And if only this be admitted, the objection to retaining the passage, in a Harmony, in the same place which it occupies in Matthew's Gospel, will then be done away. It will not need to be violently severed from what, before and after, (xn. 1, 9.) appears to have close connexion with it, and no anomaly will remain in the plan which professes to adopt Matthew's order for a guide.

It remains to say a few words respecting the present publication.

It was undertaken with no other view than to favour the usefulness of a course of expository lectures, which the editor was intending to deliver to a portion of a congregation, to which all services; he could render, have been felt to be due.

The text is that of the Common Version, conformed to Griesbach's edition of the Greek, no other alteration being admitted than such as correspond to the emendations presented in that work.

Much praise is due to the printers for the care which they have bestowed on the arrangement of the page. The difficulty of

Xll PREFACE.

this, in such a book, cannot, perhaps, be understood by anyone, who has not become acquainted with it by the opportunity of experience. If some typographical errors appear, they are immaterial, and will be thought as few as could reasonably have been looked for. Should the work reach a second edition, with the advantage of the first in the hands of the compositor, no such difficulty in attaining typographical exactness will remain.

Horizontal lines indicate that, from the place of their insertion, the narrative or discourse proceeds in the words of a different number of evangelists, from what have furnished the preceding passage. Perpendicular lines show, that, parallel with the passage at their left side, there is a passage of an evangelist who is later in the usual order of the Gospels. Headings, indicating the contents of sections, are avoided, as almost necessarily partaking of the nature of a commentary.

The Calendar (p. 258) is from the last edition of Carpenter's Geography.

Finally, the editor of these pages has to disclaim all title to other credit, than what maybe due to some pains taken for their correct arrangement ; and to apologize beforehand to the learned and revered author of the plan, if, in undertaking to represent him, he has, in any instance, misunderstood his sense.

January 8, 1831.

TABLE

CHAPTERS AND VERSES.

MATTHEW.

Chap. Verse

Page

Chap. Verse

Page

. 40

18 — 25 .

. 5

6—12 . . .

. 107

. 8

13 — 36 . . .

. 110

. 10

. 118

13 — 17 .

. 14

. 123

. 16

. 128

. 40

. 136

13 — 16 .

. 43

. 141

. 40

. 146

18 — 22

. 42

29 — 34 . .

. 152

23 — 25

. 44

. 154

. 46

12 — 13 . .

. 160

. 50

14 — 16 . .

. 156

. 52

. 159

VIII. 1

. 55

18 — 19 . .

. . 160

2— 4

. 54

20 — 46 . .

. 162

5 — 13

. 56

. . 168

14 — 17

. 44

. . 174

18 — 34

. 58

. . 178

IX. 1

. 60

. . 186

2 — 26

. 64

. . 188

27 — 35

. 74

21 — 24 . .

. . 194

36 — 38

. 76

. . 197

. . 78

26 — 29 . .

. . 196

2— 4

. . 74

. . 204

5 — 42

. . 78

31—35 . .

. . 202

. . 82

36 — 75 . .

. . 204

20 — 30

. . 84

. . 214

. . 24

15 — 31 . .

. . 218

9 — 50

. . 90

32 — 66 . .

. . 224

XIII.pl — 23

. . 98

XXVIII. 1—8 . .

. . 232

24 — 58

. . 104

9 — 15 . .

. . 236

. . 110

16 — 20 . .

. . 242

* The passages indicated in the first column begin respectively upon the pass numbered in the second.

Contents

MARK.

9 — 11 .

. 14