Thinking about chronology in the gospel according to saint John.

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Here is an image of a Jewish religious calendar. It will help with constructing a coherent chronology from the account in the gospel according to saint John and the gospels according to saints Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

26.png


John 2:13 mentions the Passover this appears to be the first passover after the baptism of the Lord by saint John the Baptist (John 1:29-34).

John 5:1 mentions a feast of the Jews which the Lord went to Jerusalem to celebrate. Some commentators and a number of the early church fathers believe this is the second passover following the baptism of the Lord.

John 6:4 mentions the Passover. This would be the third passover after the baptism of the Lord.

John 7:2 mentions the feast of Tabernacles. This would be about six months after the third passover since the Lord's baptism.

John 10:22 mentions the feast of dedication. This would be about 5 months before the fourth Passover after the baptism of the Lord.

John 11:55; John 12:1; John 13:1; John 18:28; John 18:39; John 19:14 mention the Passover. This would be the fourth and last passover following the baptism of the Lord.
 
Last edited:

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
i think,... it is generally accepted that johns gospel is the more passionate of the gospels with emphasis on salvation more then on chronological exactness .
after all ,unlike luke and matthew beginning with genealogies .. John begins with a flamboyant and passionate declaration the revelation of the manifestation of god in the flesh (being the Son of God )

but is there a point your heading to ?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,121
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
i think,... it is generally accepted that johns gospel is the more passionate of the gospels with emphasis on salvation more then on chronological exactness .
after all ,unlike luke and matthew beginning with genealogies .. John begins with a flamboyant and passionate declaration the revelation of the manifestation of god in the flesh (being the Son of God )

but is there a point your heading to ?

Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (Church History) wrote that saints Matthew, Mark, and Luke deal with the events in Christ's earthly ministry AFTER the arrest of saint John the Baptist while saint John deals with the events BEFORE saint John the Baptist's arrest. All four of the gospels deal with the events of the last week of Christ's life. Thus we have from the Gospels according to saints Matthew, Mark, and Luke the events of the last year of Christ's ministry and from the gospel according to saint John the events of the first two or three years of Christ's earthly ministry and all four of the gospels telling us of the last week.

Here is some information I included in another post from another thread. It may be interesting to you.

...
Eusebius says:
Chapter 24. The Order of the Gospels.

1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle.

2. And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. That it has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following way.

3. Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works.

4. And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles, although he had innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there.

5. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.

8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

9. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee. Matthew 4:12

10. Mark likewise says: Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee. Mark 1:14 And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison. Luke 3:20

11. They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: This beginning of miracles did Jesus; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; John 3:23 where he states the matter clearly in the words: For John was not yet cast into prison.

12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit.

14. These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us.

15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.

16. So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them.

17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed.

18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.
 
Top Bottom