Excursus: The Chronology of St. John and the Synoptists
The Beginning of the Signs of the Messianic Times (John 2)
In John 2 we turn to the first miracle narrative, and it is a festive occasion. This declares the character of his teaching—the Son of Man came eating and drinking (Matt 21:18-19). Here we have a practical comment on the saying recorded in the Synoptics. This word ‘came’ especially in its contrast to the way John came; seems to point to such a commencement of our Lord’s ministry as this. It is especially significant, too, that the first miracle was wrought to bless the one human relation that his later followers, for centuries afterwards, were only too ready to depreciate. The unconscious Manicheanism of medieval Christianity finds no countenance in the teachings of the Savior. It is instructive as well to compare the opening of his ministry with the close.
Vs. 1 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ i.e. reckoning from the last mentioned day.
Κανᾶ Cureton Syr. (see John 4:46) and this is also the form in the Peshitto. As the Syriac generally retains the original Aramaic name which has been transformed in the Greek, e.g. Simeon, Johanan, so probably here as well. If so, in identifying the place the form Catna ought to be kept in view, though possibly the ‘t’ has dropped out in the modern (Arabic) dialect, as it had in the Greek. It was to be identified with Kefer Kenna, but Robinson identified it with Kana Elilet (?), about nine miles from Nazareth. This is more probable. It has koph and not a caph but the ‘t’ is not regarded.
γάμος a marriage feast, the feast being the most important part of the ceremonial. See Tobit 8:19: καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτοῖς γάμον ἡμερῶν δεκατεσσάρων; Esther 4:22: ἐν γὰρ ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἀνεπαύσαντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν μῆνα, ἐν ᾧ ἐστράφη αὐτοῖς (ὃς ἦν Ἀδὰρ) ἀπὸ πένθους εἰς χαρὰν καὶ ἀπὸ ὀδύνης εἰς ἀγαθὴν ἡμέραν, ἄγειν ὅλον ἀγαθὰς ἡμέρας γάμων καὶ εὐφροσύνης, ἐξαποστέλλοντας μερίδας τοῖς φίλοις καὶ τοῖς πτωχοῖς; and Gen 29:22: συνήγαγεν δὲ Λαβαν πάντας τοὺς ἄνδρας τοῦ τόπου καὶ ἐποίησεν γάμον, where ἐποίησεν γάμον is a non-literal translation of וַיּעשַׂ מִשְׁתּה whereas the literal would be συμπόσιον. And see the other references in Smith’s Dictionary, p. 251. See also Matt 22:2: ὅστις ἐποίησεν γάμους τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ. This usage is classical but with γάμος rather than γάμον ποιεῖν. In Hellenistic Greek either is good.
ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ She is never named in St. John’s Gospel, and he never names himself, nor does he name his brother James (though James is named repeatedly in the other three Gospels). Mary’s husband Joseph appears to be already dead. This may be inferred from the silence of the Evangelists and from the expression in Matt 13:55. The explanation for the suppression of the name of Jesus’ mother is found in 19:26. The same delicate reason which would not permit him to mention his own or his brother’s name led him to suppress the name of her who had become his adopted mother. But were such fine shades of artfulness at the command of a fisher? If he had thought of the device in one case, would he have remembered it in the other? Would it have occurred to him moreover to introduce so inauspiciously an incident that only explains his reticence? This was probably John’s first introduction to her whose adopted son he was to become. The mother takes precedence over the son here, but it would be the son who would be glorified (vs. 23).
καί also, referring to what goes before. Comp. for the καί (separated from the καί which follows), Phil 4:3—μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου.
Vs. 2 καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ i.e. Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael, and John.
Vs. 3 λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν Said half in perplexity half in expectation that he might render aid. Obviously there is expectation, and some faith in a supernatural power that dictates the question. Such might be expected of her who held the secret of his divine parentage, who kept all these things in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51), even if she had not heard (which she must have done) about John the Baptist’s announcement. She is decisive that he should manifest forth his glory. There is some alloy mixed up with the faith perhaps, parental ambition, perhaps eager impatience, which he checks.
Compare the answer in Luke 2:49 to ‘your father and I . . .’ namely ‘I must be about my Father’s business.’ We have the same separation of himself from her here. Note the substantial unity of the different Gospels here.
Vs. 4 γύναι No want of respect here. Nothing harsh in this term meaning ‘lady’ or ‘madam.’ No other term would be used. μήτηρ would have been inconsistent with Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί. But still there is a certain tone of reserve. Comp. Matt 19:26.
On Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί cf. Matt 8:29; Luke 8:28; Mark 5:7; Jud. 15:12. ‘What have you and I in common? What is there between us two? My ways are not your ways. I know when it is fit to work a miracle, and when it is fit to withhold, but you do not.’ Here is the rebuke.
οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου The reference is not so much to lapse of time absolutely, as to the opportuneness of the occasion relatively, and the fitness of things. More especially it has to do with the frame of mind, the spirit of the witnesses, and above all of her who asks the question.
Vs. 5 From eager impatience, from parental ambition, she is at once corrected to humble submission and to unquestioning faith. The ὥρα which a moment before was far off, has at once arrived. The change of mind has made the distant, present. He will not work a miracle and gratify those who from ambition or curiosity seek a sign (see Mark 8:12; Matt 16:1sq.; Luke 4:16sq.), but to humble faith the response is at once given.
Vs. 6 λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμόν See Mark 7:3. See the relevant section in the Mishnah on purifications.
τῶν Ἰουδαίων It occurs rarely in the other Gospels (Matt 28:15; Mark 7:3; Luke 7:3 [ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, but of the centurion]; and 13:51 [πόλεως τῶν Ἰουδαίων]). But it is characteristic of St. John. Note the altered circumstances and the lapse of time, and the probable residence among Gentiles, and the fall of the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity.
ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς. μετρητάς is the equivalent to the Hebrew ‘bath.’ The Attic μετρητάς contained 72 xestae (?) and the Hebrew ‘bath’ contained 72 ‘lgs’ (?). This seems to point to some common source of measurement, perhaps Egyptian (see Smith’s Dictionary, p. 1736). On the amount of water necessary for each unit, see that prescribed in the Mishnah (VI, p. 480 Sarentin?). The Attic measurement μετρητάς was 8.66 gallons. Josephus identifies the ‘bath’ with the μετρητάς. See Ant. viii.2.9 where he says it is equal to 72 xestae. The estimate of the later rabbis makes it 4.4286 gallons (Smith’s Dictionary, p. 1742). Probably the Greek term μετρητάς here means the Hebrew bath, not the Attic measurement. It stands for it in the LXX in 2 Chron 4:5. Was there a Greek μετρητάς different from the Attic μετρητάς? The jars might or might not have been empty to start with so we do not know if they filled them full. Cf. Sir 35:1, 22:1 to Heliod. Athn. vii.27. See Gruter, p. 578 no.1, and 474.4 and 579.7 (the same as Muratori p. 924.1). The ‘triclinardes’ (often a slave) was the chief of the tricliniarii (see Gruter, p.576.6). We find them also in Petronius, M. Beker, Chancl. II, p. 252.
Vs. 9 ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο This does not mean (as Alford seems to think) that he was a guest. He does the work of a ‘progustator.’
οἶνον γεγενημένον ‘When it had been made wine.’
Vs. 10 ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν ‘When men have drunk deep.’ See Pliny, Nat. Hist. xiv.13.
Vs. 11 ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων as a beginning of his signs. Probably omit τήν before ἀρχήν (in the B.M.T. and the T.R.) but this is uncertain. τἀ σημεία is a favorite word in St. John. This is significant. He never uses δύναμις, as is common in the Synoptics. Every incident, every discussion in this Gospel is a σημείον. Also τέρατα is a favorite word in Acts, but in the Gospels only occasionally (cf. Matt 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48).
Ταύτην ἐποίησεν This again seems to be some kind of answer to a question from St. John’s disciples. Comp. above on 1:41 and below on 4:46, 54. The precision with which these miracles in Cana are related is noteworthy.
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ See on 1:14. He appears as the divine Logos. He gives proof that by Him all things were made.
It is worth remarking on the striking character of the miracle. So St. John always. He does not record many miracles but they are always the most striking of their class, each distinct types. The difficulty in miracles is not enhanced by the scale. The many gallons of water made wine may startle the imagination, but the creative power that could turn one drop of water into wine could with the same ease turn the whole. It may seem strange that the impression on those present was not greater. But we are apt to exaggerate the probable effect of such an exhibition of power. There are many ways of thrusting aside the practical implications, many ways of explaining away the divine interposition, which, no doubt, even in our own days men would have recourse to—‘and they said that he cast out demons by Beelzebub the prince of the devils’ which was a recourse available then but would not be now, which would cover any case. We must mention the moral condition of the witness, his capacity of discerning the spirits, his receptivity of divine teaching, was the only safe-guard of belief, even when a miracle was wrought.
Vs. 12 Μετὰ τοῦτο After this, how long is not said.
Κατέβη for Capernaum was on the lakeside, Cana in the hill country, 4:46. So Luke 4:31, from Nazareth.
Καφαρναούμ The best supported form (א, B, Orig.). See the Syriac in Cureton on 4:46, and Peshitto. It means Caphar village opposite to a large town, Capharsalama (1 Macc 7:31). See Lenz, p. 383. It seems to mean the village of refreshment. This was probably the original force of the proper name. The word means resuscitation or revivification hence either consolation or resurrection or both. This might be alluded to in Luke 4:23. The important point is that in St. Luke mention is made of his having been ‘of Capernaum’ too. Observe the change from 2:1—he has taken his right place, he has increased but she has decreased.
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ Probably those mentioned before.
οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας The reason explained in the following verse.
Vs. 13 τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων For πάσχα see Lenz, p. 276, explained ὑπέρβασια in Josephus, Ant. ii.6. The natural confusion with πάσχειν, hence the Latin Fathers translate it pasias. The form is the Aramaic emphatic. Comp. Satan-Satana (whence Satanas). Note σάββατα that becomes a plural.
Excursus: The Chronology of St. John and the Synoptists
‘He went up to Jerusalem.’ Note the number of visits to Jerusalem. The visits to Jerusalem are the signal posts of St. John’s chronology: 1) here (cf. 4:13) a Passover—the first Passover. Cleansing of the Temple, discourse with Nicodemus; 2) There is a Festival (5:1). Irenaeus p. 147 says it was a Passover, as does Origen (IV, p. 250), though it is not stated. Several uncial manuscripts read ἡ ἑορτή. The article is apparently added to define it as ‘the’ Passover (as e.g. here). But in 7:1 the Feast of the Tabernacles is called ἡ ἑορτή. The use elsewhere of the definite article seems to show that it was not the Passover. 3) The healing at the Pool of Bethesda—the two verses prepare. He is in Galilee (6:4). So in 7:2, 14, 37 we have the Feast of the Tabernacles (October), preaching of Jesus, [woman taken in adultery], healing of the blind man; 4) 10:22. Apparently a separate visit for the term τὰ ἐνκαίνια, the Feast of Dedication (winter), and the raising of Lazarus; 5) 11:55; 12:1, 2. The Passover. So from John 12:10 onwards, almost everything takes place at Jerusalem or in that neighborhood. Hence, St. John has been called the Jerusalem Gospel, the other three the Galilean Gospels.
From St. John, we derive the backbone of the chronology of our Lord’s life. These Jewish festivals are so many vertebrae. But even here we cannot be sure that the chronology is continuous. Jesus may have paid more visits to Jerusalem than are recorded. His active ministry may have extended over more than three Passovers. There is nothing in St. John’s narrative that excludes this. From 8:57 Irenaeus (ii.22.6) infers that our Lord was not far from fifty years old, at all events that he was over forty. There would be some ground for this if the Jews knew our Lord’s age. As it was, they would simply state the extreme possible limit. The ‘man of sorrows’ might well look older than an ordinary man—‘You have not lived half a century, and have you seen Abraham?’ Irenaeus gives as his reason Jesus lived forty years or more that this is the mature time of life, neither unripe as a youth, nor decayed as old age. He is arguing against the Valentinian chronology, which supposed that Jesus died complens trigesiorum annum [about 30 years of age]. See their argument in Irenaeus. He appeals to the elders who were disciples of St. John, but what it was exactly that they testified is not clear. Whether it was said that Jesus’ ministry extended several years after his baptism (after his thirtieth year), or that he was over forty years old at his Passion, is not clear. There is nothing in St. John’s Gospel that directly contradicts the view that he was between forty and fifty years old when he died, but there is also nothing which requires it. On the other hand, the narrative suggests a shorter ministry, three or four years. If Irenaeus meant that the elders said this (but Jesus was forty or fifty years old), it is probable that he misrepresented them (confusing his own interpretations with their tradition), or that they misrepresented the statement of St. John. But it is by no means clear that he did mean this.
Altogether, St. John’s chronology is thoroughly natural. There is no symmetrical arrangement in it, no appearance of artifice. It is altogether irregular, and there are also great gaps in the history (e.g. 7:1; 10:40), long stretches of days about which nothing is rendered (see Sabatier, p. 56). This again is evidence of authenticity. So much for St. John’s chronology absolutely, and now to compare it to the other three Gospels.
The Synoptics exhibit no chronological certainty. Occasionally incidents are linked together as occurring at about the same time, but there is no chronological backbone here. In the general chronology then there is no conflict because there is no contact. The Synoptics might suggest only one year of ministry, and the Valentinians and others have drawn this inference from them, but it is an inference drawn only from their silence, and is valueless against any facts on the other side. Because only one Passover is mentioned in the Synoptics, we cannot conclude that only one occurred during our Lord’s ministry. On the other hand, the various effects of our Lord’s ministry as represented in the Synoptics seem to require more than a year. One must remember the fragmentary character of these three Gospels. They are not biographies but incidences from our Lord’s life and teaching, gathered and grouped together for catechetical purposes. The great prima facie difference is in the number of visits to Jerusalem. Only one is recorded in the Synoptics, and yet even here they give indication of their fragmentary character. There are incidents, there are expressions of our Lord which presuppose previous visits: 1) he does not come to Jerusalem as a stranger (see Sabatier, pp. 85-86 and on the Sermon on the Mount also); 2) we have a distinct statement in Matt 13:37/Luke 13:34 (‘how often’); 3) the allusions in Luke 13:6, 9, 33 especially in their connection. As for the sort of argument used against such data (Mark 10:32), see Sabatier, p. 84.
Ἱεροσόλυμα See Josephus, Bell. Jud. vi.10 of Melchizedek (‘Its original founder was a Canaanite chief called in the native tongue ‘righteous King’ for such indeed he was. In virtue thereof, he was the first to officiate as priest of God and being the first to build the temple, gave the city, previously called Solyma, the name of Jerusalem.’) but Ant. i.10.2 is more vague. Eupolemius from Alexander Polyhistor quoted in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. ix.34sq. speaks of the building of the Temple in Jerusalem (by Solomon).
Vs. 14 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, not the ναός comp. 10:23. See Josephus, Ant. viii.3.9 and see Trench’s Synonyms. On ‘between the temple/ναός and the altar,’ see Matt 23:35. On the τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας (merchants), see Mishnah, Shekalim 7.2. καθήμενος, a positive characteristic of bankers, hence the ἐπικαθήμενος, the money changers, see Demosthenes, Phorm. p. 946.
Vs. 15 ἐκ σχοινίων This feature does not occur in the Synoptic accounts. Σχοινίον is a rope made of rushes or reeds in the LXX as well as in classical Greek. See Josh 2:15 LXX; 2 Sam 8:2.
τά τε πρόβατα probably ‘and’ as πάντας rather than πάντα seems to show. On τῶν κολλυβιστῶν, see John Lightfoot on Matt 21:12. See Surentus (?) Vol. II, p. 176sq. κολλύβος is the payment to the moneychanger, a fee paid to him to change the money. The half (Tyrian) shekel payment to the temple was on the first of Adar, collected in the provinces on the fifteenth. On the twenty-fifth the bankers sat in the sanctuary. The money was supposed to be all collected before the end of the Jewish year (?). On the fourteenth Zina (?) was he present? This would explain ἐγγὺς ἦν in vs. 13, but probably the money-changers sat in the sanctuary at other times as well to accommodate the purchase of victims etc. There were precise directions about the chests for receiving the money and for the banking.
ἐξέχεεν aorist (perhaps) see Lobeck, Phyrm. p. 222.
Vs. 16 Πατρός μου See Luke 2:49; comp. John 5:18; 8:19. The claiming of God as his Father is one of the stresses.
οἶκον ἐμπορίου The language at the close of the ministry is more severe—σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (‘house of thieves’—see Matt 21:13).
Vs. 17 ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταί perhaps at a later date as in vs. 22.
Ὁ ζῆλος see Ps 69:9.
καταφάγεταί E.V. wrong here ‘hath eaten.’ The future here is substituted for the aorist to bring out the prophetic reference. καταφαγέται does not refer to outward persecution. On the form see Lobeck, Phyrm. 327. As for the reference of this Psalm to the Messiah see elsewhere in John 15:25 compared to vs. 4 and 19:28 compared to vs. 21. So also in the other Evangelists and see Acts 1:20—vs. 25. See Perowne (?), p. 367.
An incident of the same kind is recorded in the Synoptics as happening at the close of our Lord’s ministry (Matt 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45). If it were necessary to identify the one with the other, St. John would have the higher claim to be the historic truth, the Synoptics must yield absolute deference to it. The Synoptics are to be interpreted by St. John and not conversely, for St. John is precise and definite. But the incident may well have occurred twice, the same scene of profanation calling forth the same feeling of righteous anger, would produce the same results.
Vs. 18 We are ill-fitted by our conventional mode of life for judging of the character of an incident so thoroughly unconventional. It would not startle the Jews as it would startle us. It would seem a not unnatural (though somewhat extraordinary) act of a religious zealot. The many incidents recorded in Josephus’ narrative of zealotry in these days will offer confirmation. The Jews are impatient of such a proceeding. They require to see Jesus’ credentials. They resent it, but not more than this.
ἀπεκρίθησαν ‘Answered’ is too narrow for the word. ‘Remonstrated’ would express the meaning here, but this again would not include other passages. This verb is used for replying to an act, as well as replying to a speech.
The ναός is the body of Christ but it is also the Herodian temple. With the death of Christ was involved the abolition of the Jewish polity, the destruction of the Jewish temple which was the symbol and center of that polity. With the resurrection arose a new, a spiritual, Temple not made with hands, the Christian Church. The Christian Church is symbolized by, and in some sense is the body of Christ.
Compare the form in which the accusation is brought against our Lord in Mark—Ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι Ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω (14:58).
As Christ’s body died a natural body and rose a spiritual body, so on the ruins of the material temple was built the spiritual edifice of the Church. Out of the ashes of the Israel according to the flesh arose the Israel according to the Spirit.
To this saying of the Lord in vs. 18 (interpreted in some such way), we may refer the words of St. Stephen that was alleged as a charge against him (see Acts 6:14). The idea of a body as a temple, because in it the Spirit of God resides, or should reside, is familiar from St. Paul. To our Lord it was applicable as to no one else see Col 2:9—ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς.
St. Mark tells us that the false witnesses did not agree with one another (Mark 14:58). The saying was sufficiently obscure in itself for unscrupulous men to wrest both the form and the meaning to their own purposes. Of the double meaning, the primary meaning is to some external act or thing, the secondary reference is to some spiritual truth symbolized literally. St. John’s Gospel will afford many instances (e.g. 3:13) where there is an allusion to the actual Incarnation and actual resurrection but there is also a reference to the spiritual descent and ascent.
Vs. 22 ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ The passage in view is not as listed by Alford. See Gal 3:22. St. John very frequently refers to a particular γραφῇ without specifying which one it is. This may be regarded as almost his special peculiarity. The meaning of this is that he wrote for those who did not require this information, who probably had heard the application from his own lips, who at all events lived in an age when the application had become recognized, had become in a manner stereotyped. So here cf. 17:12; 19:28; 20:9. But in all cases the reference can be determined with high probability. Thus 17:12 refers to Ps. 41:10; see John 13:18. John 19:28 refers to Ps 69:22 as appears from the incident itself and from the other Evangelists.
The reference here and in 20:9 will be the same. What is it then? The words ‘when then he arose from the dead, the disciples remembered and believed the Scripture.’ What Scripture did the disciples so apply soon after the resurrection? St. Luke’s narrative supplies the answer—Acts 2:27, 31 citing Ps 16:10. Recollect that this was said by St. Peter on a very notable occasion (the most notable occasion of preaching recorded in the history of the Church), not very long after the resurrection and in the presence of St. John.
Vs. 23 The three uses of ἐν here: 1) local; 2) temporal; 3) pragmatical. The last however in the phrase ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ is very doubtful. On א, B comp. 6:4.
Let us ask ourselves the meaning of the change from Scriptures to Scripture (singular). This is not insignificant. There was gradual insensibility to the variety of Scriptures. The diversity was lost sight of in the unity. This has been going on in John, in other words. Instrumentum and bibliotheca have both disappeared as names for the Scriptures. They used to be called ‘the books,’ τὰ βιβλία. This was transferred to Latin—Bibliaorum, but in late medieval Latin Biblia, Bibliae. And in modern languages la Biblia, la Bible, die Bibel. Whether the feminine first appeared in the Latin or the Romances languages, deserves inquiring into. I should think the latter. The transference into another language would facilitate the change of gender and the Romance dialects would react on the Latin. There is a gain in the clear concept of unity, but a definite loss in the absence of any sense of variety. Modern criticism has taken its revenge. A one-sided conception has produced a one-sided reaction. And the critics have found nothing but divergences, discrepancies, oppositions.
ἐπίστευσαν εἰς To ‘believe in’ not the same as to believe.
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ This refers to his dignity, his claim to deference. Yet the belief was not very deep-seated as appears from the next verse.
Vs. 24 Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς as Luke 16:11. See Bretschneider, Lex. s.v πιστεύειν, p. 277.
αὐτόν not αὑτόν here, but perhaps to be aspirated here; comp. 19:17; Acts 14:17; Rev 8:6; 18:7. See the note in A. Buttmann, p. 98. Yet perhaps αὐτόν here can be treated like the English ‘he bethought himself.’ The αὐτόν seems to show that the repetition of the same word was intention. In the A.V. ἐπίστευεν ‘believe.’ The same word should be rendered in both clauses ‘trust.’
Vs. 25 περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου and ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ not as A.V. ‘should testify of man for he knew what was in a man.’ It specifies the particular man with whom at any time he had dealings.
αὐτός Not translated in the A.V. that also chose not to translate it in the previous verse. Here it is ‘of Himself’ there ‘on his part.’
ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα