(a) _Evidence of St Luke's Gospel_ (iii. 1).--A _terminus a quo_ for the
Baptism is the synchronism of the commencement of the Baptist's public
ministry with the fifteenth year of the rule ([Greek: aegemonia]) of
Tiberius. Augustus died on 19th August A.D. 14, and, reckoned from that
point, Tiberius's fifteenth year might be, according to different
methods of calculation, either A.D. 28, or 28-29, or 29. But any such
result would be difficult to reconcile with the results yielded by other
lines of investigation in this article; among alternative views the
choice seems to lie between the following:--(i.) The years of Tiberius
are here reckoned from some earlier starting-point than the death of his
predecessor--probably from the grant to him of co-ordinate authority
with Augustus over the provinces made in A.D. 11 (see, for the parallel
with the case of Vespasian and Titus, Ramsay, _St Paul the Roman
Traveller_, p. 387), so that the fifteenth year would be roughly A.D.
25; or (ii.) St Luke has made here a second error in chronology, caused
perhaps in this case by reckoning back from the Crucifixion, and only
allowing one year to the ministry of Christ.
(b) _Evidence of St John's Gospel_ (ii. 13, 20).--A _terminus ad quem_
for the Baptism is the synchronism of the first Passover mentioned after
it with the forty-sixth year of the building of Herod's Temple. Herod
began the Temple in the eighteenth year of his reign, probably 20-19
B.C., and the Passover of the forty-sixth year is probably that of A.D.
27. While too much stress must not be laid on a chain of reasoning open
to some uncertainty at several points, it is difficult to suppose with
Loisy, _Quatrieme Evangile_, 1903, p. 293, that the number was intended
by the evangelist as purely figurative, and is therefore destitute of
all historical meaning.
On the whole, the Baptism of Christ should probably be placed in A.D.
26-27; and as the Nativity was placed in 7-6 B.C. (at latest), this
would make the age of Christ at his Baptism to be about thirty-two,
which tallies well enough with St Luke's general estimate.
4. The interval between the Baptism and the Crucifixion, or, in other
words, the duration of the public ministry of Christ.
(a) _Evidence of the Synoptic Tradition and of St Mark's Gospel_ (ii.
23, vi. 39, xiv. 1).--The order of events in the primitive synoptic
tradition appears to be faithfully reproduced in St Mark; and if this
order is chronological, Christ's ministry lasted at least two years,
since the plucking of the ears of corn (April-June) marks a first
spring; the feeding of the five thousand when the grass was fresh green
([Greek: chloros]: about March), a second; and the Passover of the
Crucifixion a third: and these three points are so far removed from one
another in the narrative that the conclusion would hold, even if the
general arrangement in St Mark were only roughly, and not minutely,
chronological. On the other hand, it may be true that an impression of a
briefer period of ministry naturally results, and in early generations
did actually result, from the synoptic account considered as a whole.
(b) _Evidence of St Luke's Gospel_ (ix. 51-xix. 28 compared with iv.
14-ix. 50; iv. 19).--Still stronger is the impression of brevity
suggested by St Luke. The second and larger half of the narrative of the
ministry is introduced at ix. 51 with the words, "It came to pass as the
days of His assumption were coming to the full, He set His face firmly
to go to Jerusalem," under which phrase the evangelist cannot have meant
to include more than a few months, perhaps not more than a few weeks; so
that even if the earlier and shorter half of the account, which
describes a purely Galilean ministry ("Judaea" in iv. 44, if it is the
true reading, means Judaea in the sense of Palestine), is to be spread
over a longer period of time, the combined narrative can hardly have
been planned on the scale of more than a single year. St Luke himself
may have understood literally, like so many of his readers in ancient
times, the reference which he records to the "acceptable year of the
Lord" (iv. 19 = Isaiah lxi. 2): see, too, above, 3 (a) _ad fin_.
(c) _Evidence of St John's Gospel_ (ii. 13, "the Passover of the Jews
was near," and 23, "He was in Jerusalem at the Passover at the feast";
v. 1, "after these things was a feast [or 'the feast'] of the Jews"; vi.
4, "and the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near"; vii. 2, "and the
feast of the Jews, the Tabernacles, was near"; x. 22, "at that time the
feast of dedication took place at Jerusalem"; xi. 55, "and the Passover
of the Jews was near": besides iv. 35, "say ye not that there is yet a
period of four months and harvest cometh? behold, I tell you, lift up
your eyes and see the fields that they are white to harvest"). This
catena of time-references is of course unique in the Gospels as a basis
for a chronology of the ministry; and it is not reasonable to doubt
(with Loisy, _loc. cit_., who suggests that the aim was to produce an
artificial correspondence of a three and a half years' ministry with the
half-week of Daniel; but many and diverse as are the early
interpretations of Daniel's seventy weeks, no one before Eusebius
thought of connecting the half-week with the ministry), that the
evangelist intended these notices as definite historical _data_,
possibly for the correction of the looser synoptic narratives and of the
erroneous impressions to which they had given rise. Unfortunately,
difficulties, either (i.) of reading, or (ii.) of interpretation, or
(iii.) of arrangement, have been raised with regard to nearly all of
them; and these difficulties must be briefly noticed here.
(i.) _Readings_ ([alpha]) v. 1. [Greek: eortae] A B D, Origen,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, _Paschal Chronicle_; [Greek: ae eortae]
[Hebrew: alef]CL[Delta] 1-118, 33, the Egyptian versions, Eusebius,
Cyril-Alex. (Irenaeus?). The balance of internal evidence--copyists
being more likely to accentuate than to diminish the precision of a
note of time--inclines, like the balance of external evidence, against
the article, ([beta]) vi. 4, [Greek: to pascha] is read by all known
MSS. and versions; but it has been argued by Hort (in Westcott's and
Hort's _New Testament in Greek_, appendix, pp. 77-81) that four
ancient authorities omitted the words, and that their omission
simplifies the whole chronology, since "the feast" which was "near" in
vi. 4 would then be identical with the feast of Tabernacles mentioned
in vii. 2, and all the time-notices of the Gospel could be arranged to
fall within the space of a single year, between the Passover of ii. 13
and the Passover of xi. 55. But of the four authorities alleged,
Irenaeus (11. xxii. 3 [xxxiii. i]) and the Alogi (_ap_. Epiphanius,
_Haer._ li. 22) were giving catalogues of Passovers "observed" by
Christ (at Jerusalem), and therefore naturally omitted a mere
chronological reference like vi. 4: Cyril of Alexandria, in so far as
his evidence is adverse to the words, appears to be incorporating a
passage from the _Commentary_ of Origen, not extant _in loc_.; and the
only writer who perhaps really did omit the words--with the view, no
doubt, of reconciling the witness of the fourth Gospel with the then
widely spread tradition of the single-year ministry--is Origen
himself.
(ii.) _Interpretation_ ([alpha]) iv. 35: which is to be taken
literally, the "four months to harvest" (about January), or the
"fields white to harvest" (about May)? It does not seem possible to
rule out either interpretation; the choice between them will follow
from the view taken of the general chronological arrangement of the
Gospel. ([beta]) v. i.: if "the feast" is read, a choice remains
between Passover and Tabernacles (the definite article would not be
very definite after all); if the more probable "a feast," the greater
feasts are presumably excluded, but a choice remains between, at any
rate, Pentecost (May), Trumpets (September), Dedication (December) and
Purim (February). Here again the decision will follow on the general
chronological arrangement which may be adopted.
(iii.) _Arrangement._--So far the amount of possible latitude left is
not so great as to obscure the main outline of the chronology. For a
first (ii. 13, 20), second (vi. 4), and third (xi. 55) Passover are
established, with two indeterminate notices (iv. 35, v. 1) between the
first and second, and two determinate notices (vii. 2 Tabernacles in
October, x. 22 Dedication in December) between the second and third.
But of late years an increasing desire has been manifested, especially
in Germany and America, to manipulate the fourth Gospel on grounds of
internal evidence, at first only in the way of particular
transpositions of more or less attractiveness, but latterly also by
schemes of thorough-going rearrangement. The former class of proposals
will as a rule hardly affect the chronology of the Gospel; the latter
will affect it vitally. The distinction here drawn may be illustrated
from the earliest instance of the former and one of the latest of the
latter. In 1871 Archdeacon J.P. Norris (_Journal of Philology_) wished
to transpose chapters v. and vi.--ch. vi. was, like ch. xxi., a
Galilean appendix, and was inserted by mistake at somewhat too late a
point in the body of the Gospel--and to read "the feast" in v. 1,
identifying it with the Passover which was near in vi. 4: in any case,
whether "the feast" = Passover, or "a feast" = Pentecost, were read in
v. 1, the transposition would not affect the two years' ministry. In
1900 Professor B.W. Bacon (_American Journal of Theology_, p. 770)
proposed a rearrangement of the whole Gospel, according to which the
time-notices would occur in the following order: vi. 4, Passover is
near; iv. 35, the fields white to harvest = May; v. 1, "a feast" =
Pentecost; vii. 2, Tabernacles; x. 22, Dedication; xi. 55, Passover is
near; xii. 1, Jesus at Bethany six days before Passover; ii. 13,
Passover is near and Jesus goes up to Jerusalem (ii. 23, an
interpolation) for the Passover of the Crucifixion; and the ministry
would thus be reduced to a single year. Such a scheme does not lend
itself to discussion here; but as far as evidence is at present
obtainable, the conclusion that the fourth evangelist drew up his
narrative on the basis of a two years' rather than a one year's
ministry appears to be irrefragable.
Not only do the fourth and second Gospels thus agree in indications of a
two years' ministry, but the notes of the middle spring of the three
(John vi. 4; Mark vi. 39) both belong to the feeding of the 5000, one of
the few points of actual contact Detween the two Gospels.
The question, however, may still be raised, whether these
time-indications of the two Gospels are exhaustive, whether (that is)
two years, and two years only, are to be allotted to the ministry.
Irenaeus (ii. xxii. 3-6 [xxxiii. 1-4]), in favour of a ministry of not
less than ten years, appeals (i.) to the tradition of Asia Minor; (ii.)
to the record in St John that Christ, who was thirty years old at the
time of his baptism, was addressed by the Jews as "not yet [i.e. nearly]
fifty years old": but both his arguments are probably derived from a
single source, Papias's interpretation of John viii. 57. With this
exception, however, all ancient writers, whether they enumerated two or
three or four Passovers in the Gospel history, believed that the
enumeration was exhaustive; and their belief appears correctly to
represent the mind of the author of the Fourth Gospel, seeing that his
various notes of time were probably in intentional contrast to the
looser synoptic accounts. Moreover, the wide currency in early times of
the tradition of the single-year ministry (Ptolemaeus, _ap._ Iren, loc.
cit.; _Clementine Homilies_, xvii. 19; Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 145, vi.
279; Julius Africanus, _ap._ Routh, _Rell. Sacr._ ii. 240, 306;
Hippolytus, _Paschal Cycle_ and _Chronicle_; Origen, _in Levit. Hom._
ix. 5, _de Principiis_, iv. 5) becomes more difficult to account for the
farther it is removed from the actual facts.