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 §§ 169-184.

^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.

§ 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

Mark 16:1 Matt. 28:1

1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 1 Now late on the sabbath day,^a as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

^a This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular Koiné 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.

§ 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 sat upon it. 3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.

§ 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

Mark 16:2-8 Matt. 28:5-8 Luke 24:1-8 John 20:1

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen. 3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? 4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great. 5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which hath been crucified. 6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place ¹where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word. 1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn,^a they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 And they entered in, and found not the body ²of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel: 5 and as they were affrighted, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye ³the living among the dead? 6 ⁴He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying 7 that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. 8 And they remembered his words. 1 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.

¹ Many ancient authorities read where he lay.

² Some ancient authorities omit of the Lord Jesus.

³ Gr. him that liveth.

⁴ Some ancient authorities omit He is not here, but is risen.

^a So he had already risen at early dawn on the first day of the week. He was buried (§ 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.

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

¹ Some ancient authorities omit from the tomb.

² Some ancient authorities omit verse 12.

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.

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

Jerusalem. The first day of the week (Sunday)

Mark 16:9-11 John 20:11-18

9 ¹Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven ²devils. 10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; 12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, ³Master. 17 Jesus saith to her, ⁴Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and how that he had said these things unto her.

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.

² Gr. demons.

³ Or, Teacher.

⁴ Or, Take hold not on me.

§ 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 took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. 10 Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

§ 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 come to pass. 12 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 while we slept. 14 And if this ¹come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. 15 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.

¹ Or, come to a hearing before the governor.

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

Sunday afternoon

Mark 16:12, 13

12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.

Luke 24:13-32

13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem. 14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, ¹What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad. 18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, ²Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 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 people: 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel. Yea and beside all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass. 22 Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; 23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24 And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe ³in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further. 29 And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in to abide with them. 30 And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the ⁴bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 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?

¹ Gr. What words are these that ye exchange one with another?

² Or, Dost thou sojourn alone in Jerusalem, and knowest thou not the things.

³ Or, after.

⁴ Or, loaf.

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

Jerusalem. Sunday evening

Luke 24:33-35 1 Cor. 15:5

33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread. 5 and that he appeared to Cephas.

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

Jerusalem. Sunday evening

Mark 16:14 Luke 24:36-43 John 20:19-25

14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, ¹and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your heart? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. 40 ²And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.³ 43 And he took it, and did eat before them. 19 When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had said this, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw

the Lord. 21 Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the ⁴Holy Ghost: 23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.^a 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called ⁵Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

¹ Some ancient authorities omit and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

² Some ancient authorities omit ver. 40.

³ Many ancient authorities add and a honeycomb.

⁴ Or, Holy Spirit.

⁵ That is, Twin.

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

§ 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 his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 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, but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, ¹thou 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 disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 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. 5 [and that he appeared to Cephas;] then to the twelve;

¹ Or, hast thou believed?

§ 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 this wise. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called ¹Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 3 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 took nothing. 4 But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach: howbeit the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus therefore said unto them, Children, have ye aught to eat? They answered him, No. 6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. 7 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 coat about him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea. 8 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 net full of fishes. 9 So when they got out upon the land, they see ²a fire of coals there, and ³fish laid thereon, and ⁴bread. 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now taken. 11 Simon Peter therefore went ⁵up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, the net was not rent. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and break your fast. And none of the disciples durst inquire of him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus cometh, and taketh the ⁶bread, and giveth them, and the fish likewise. 14 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 ⁷John, ⁸lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I ⁹love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of ⁷John, ⁸lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I ⁹love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of ⁷John, ⁹lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, ⁹Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou ¹⁰knowest that I ⁹love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 18 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 carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 Now this he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 20 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 that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, ¹¹and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 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.

¹ That is, Twin.

² Gr. a fire of charcoal.

³ Or, a fish.

⁴ Or, a loaf.

⁵ Or, aboard.

⁶ Or, loaf.

⁷ Gr. Joanes. See ch. 1:42.

^{8, 9} Love in these places represents two different Greek words.

¹⁰ Or, perceivest.

¹¹ Gr. and this man, what?

^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.

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

Mark 16:15-18 Matt. 28:16-20 1 Cor. 15:6

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out ³devils; they shall speak with ⁴new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you ¹alway, even unto ²the end of the world. 6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;

¹ Gr. all the days.

² Or, the consummation of the age.

³ Gr. demons.

⁴ Some ancient authorities omit new.

^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 § 183. This is what is called by many the Great Commission.

§ 182. THE APPEARANCE TO JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS

1 Cor. 15:7

7 Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles.

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

¹ Some ancient authorities read unto.

² Or, nations. Beginning from Jerusalem, ye are witnesses.

³ Gr. presented.

⁴ Or, eating with them.

⁵ Or, in.

⁶ Or, appointed by.

§ 184. THE LAST APPEARANCE AND THE ASCENSION

On Olivet between Jerusalem and Bethany

Mark 16:19, 20 Luke 24:50-53 Acts 1:9-12

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen. 50 And he led them out until they were over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, ¹and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they ²worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 and were continually in the temple, blessing God. 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, which was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven. 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem.

¹ Some ancient authorities omit and was carried up into heaven.

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 Koiné 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 Irenæus 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.

5. 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 Dalmatæ. 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 Cæsar 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 of Alpheus James the son of Alpheus James the son of Alpheus James the son of Alpheus

10. Thaddeus Thaddeus Simon the Zealot Simon the Zealot

11. Simon the Cananæan Simon the Cananæan Judas the brother of James Judas the brother of 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 Koiné 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 Cananæan, 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 "Cananæan." 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 Encyclopædia) 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.