Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 97:385 (Jan 1940)
Article: The Chronology of Holy Week
Author: Cullen I. K. Story

BSac 97:385 (Jan 40) p. 63

The Chronology of Holy Week

Cullen I. K. Story

Introduction:

There is probably no problem in the gospels which is more uncertain as to its final solution than that of setting forth a proper chronological arrangement of the events occurring during the week in our Lord’s earthly life culminating in His death, burial and resurrection.

The subject of gospel chronology in general was a thing of early interest, as seen in the attempted arrangement of the events of the gospels in chronological sequence by the early Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Africanus and Hippolytus.

Perhaps the uncertainty (chronologically speaking) surrounding some of the events of the gospels has occasioned the opinion of some men that, in particular, the chronology of Holy Week is untenable. Indeed, Dr. Bernhard Weiss in his “Life of Christ” heads one of his pages with the words, “Synoptic Chronology Untenable.”1 In another place where he writes concerning the Paschal supper he speaks of “the error which has crept into the synoptical account.”2 Dr. A. Wright writes in the following fashion: “The Synoptists are irrevocably committed to the idea that our Lord ate the Passover on the only night on which it could be eaten, the 14th Nisan...but St. John takes unusual pains to correct this notion.”3 Another writer asserts: “It follows that the Synoptists are really inconsistent with themselves, and bear unwilling witness to the chronology of St. John.”4 The discussion of the alleged inconsistencies of the Synoptics and the connection of the Synoptics with John will come up later in consideration of various passages.

The question arises as to whether the separate gospels are to be forced into any chronological harmony. The answer is

BSac 97:385 (Jan 40) p. 64

in the negative. B. F. Westcott notes at least two proofs of this. One proof is that the gospels are fragmentary in character. By this is not meant that portions of the gospels are missing but rather that events which may be present in one gospel are purposely omitted in another because the events are not pertinent to the plan of the latter author. In other words, the gospels are complete in that the purpose of writing in each one is fulfilled, but they are fragmentary in that each one omits events that necessarily must be omitted if each writer is to keep to his purpose in writing. Indeed John says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose t...