2. Rules for Establishing the Order of Gospel Events

Since the subject of my discourse to you is to indicate the methods for establishing the order of succession of Gospel events, let me first note in general that at the beginning and end of the Lord’s action establishing the order of the course of Gospel events presents no difficulties. There and here the nature of events and direct indications in the narratives require that they be taken in one order rather than another. Not so with regard to the middle of the Lord’s action. Here the narratives do not give clear indications for this, and the nature of events is not such that they themselves determine their place. Therefore, here it is necessary first to establish certain rules and then to be guided by them in ordering Gospel events. The indication of these very rules is the main point in my discourse to you. For as soon as you agree to recognize their validity, you will not refuse to recognize that the order of Gospel events in which the present Gospel History presents them rests on a firm foundation.

These rules are not complex – indeed, there is but one, with certain necessary supplements to it – namely: one must follow the order of Gospel events which two evangelists follow. For as soon as two agree, on the other side only one remains, who should yield to the two, according to the word of the Lord, that at the mouth of two witnesses every saying shall be established. Only three evangelists are taken into account because all the middle of Gospel history is transmitted by only three evangelists: holy Matthew, holy Mark, and holy Luke. The Gospel of John enters here only through the account of the Lord’s stay at the second Passover, which he alone possesses, and the account of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand in the wilderness, consistent with the other evangelists.

As a supplement to this rule, the following must be added:

1) As soon as we come, following the indication of two evangelists, to an event which is transmitted by only one evangelist, and with that evangelist it stands immediately after the last one determined by the indication of the two, then it is fitting to place it here and nowhere else;

2) In giving a place to an event according to the indication of two evangelists, it is necessary to also draw in the account of it from the third evangelist and to borrow from him, where they exist, supplementary details for a more complete portrayal of the event. This is understood and done of itself, as soon as the account drawn from the third evangelist harmoniously enters with its peculiarities into the account of the two.

But 3) when these peculiarities are of such a kind that they cannot be introduced into the account of the two without disrupting it, then that event must be recognized as having recurred with such peculiarities, and its account must be given separately and placed in another fitting place, being guided either by the first supplementary rule or by any considerations arising from the relations of the event;

4) the same thing must be said of the words of the Lord the Saviour – when they, in content touching upon one and the same subject, in their portrayal contain significant peculiarities with one evangelist, they should be considered as repeated in that particular circumstance in which they stand, and their place should be determined by following the first or third supplementary rule.

These rules, although adapted for the middle part of Gospel history, nevertheless also find application in the narratives of the beginning and end events of this history.