r """"¦; ' ygwetJufiBaoyy y y\
for the. fewiding ff a CfHrf;t in this .Colony"]

ILHISByMSy

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

AFTER SIX DAYS;
A NEW GLUE FOR
GOSPEL CRITICS
BENJAMIN W. BACON

> Restated ijjoni
THE tfAlkvAiq^p^Q^L, ¦ REVIEW
Volume Vpt'y January, 1915

my

94 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

AFTER SIX DAYS : A NEW CLUE FOR GOSPEL
CRITICS
BENJAMIN W. BACON
The conception of a preliminary period of ritual prepa
ration for occasions of special sanctity is common to
many religions, including that of the Old Testament,
where the touching of holy things or coming into the
divine presence requires a period of previous abstinence
from anything involving ceremonial defilement. In
1 Sam. 21 5 and Ex. 19 10, 15 this period is of "three
days." The longer period of "six days" is required for
the supreme occasion when Moses meets Yahweh face
to face on Sinai (Ex. 24 16), and this interval becomes
as it were stereotyped in the most distinctive of Jewish
institutions, the periodic seventh day "the sabbath of
the Lord thy God," to which the preceding six days of
toil lead up. The Jew labors and does all his work in
the first six days of the week in order that he may rest
and enjoy the fruit of his toil the seventh day, just as in
the creation Yahweh's activity had led up to a period
of satisfied contemplation of all that He had made as
"very good." In like manner the later speculators of
both Synagogue and Church expected the toil and tur
moil of the six ages of "this world," each of one thousand
years' duration, to lead up to the blessed repose and
fruition of "the age to come," ushered in by the "thou
sand years" of Messiah.
To our modern view, which makes the holy day the
beginning instead of the end and climax of the week,
much of the forward look (if I may so express it) of the
earlier practice is lost. To the Jew of New Testament

AFTER SIX DAYS 95
times every Friday was "Preparation "-day (irapao-Kevfj) .*
He had in addition a special "Preparation "-day for every
great feast, and a ritual observance to mark it (the
Kiddush). The peculiar chronology of the Fourth Gos
pel seems in fact to make the year of the crucifixion one
in which the "Preparation of the passover" (Jn. 19 14),
i.e. Nisan 14, coincided with the regular weekly "Prepa
ration" (ver. 31). It may be that the fourth evange
list is thus seeking harmony with his predecessors. At
all events he shows the persistence of the Jewish institu
tion of Kiddush or pre-sanctification.
We should expect, therefore, so long as this "forward
look" survived in the hebdomadal calendar of the early
Church, that the period of "six days," the regular inter
val between holy days, would have special significance,
perhaps alternating with other expressions for the week,
just as the Hexaemeros of Philo (literally the "six-day"
period) becomes the accepted symbolic phrase for Chris
tian writers on the end of the world, because the mil
lennium or great sabbath of God (Heb. 4 9-11) was
expected to dawn when the world had completed six
thousand years from the creation.
In point of fact, direct reference to a preparatory
period of abstinence before great solemnities is by no
means lacking in the very earliest records of the Church.
The great Paschal controversy of the second century,
breaking out on three successive occasions, and threaten
ing in Irenaeus' time to disrupt the Asiatic from the
Western church, was largely concerned with the duration
of the preliminary fast which led up to the supreme
feast of the Christian calendar. As Irenaeus wrote to
Victor of Rome ca. 195 a.d.:
"The controversy is not only concerning the day (i.e. whether only
a Lord's day should be observed as the Easter feast, or the Jewish
1 In a personal letter Professor George F. Moore of Harvard kindly explains
that the Greek term is a rendering of the Hebrew hakanah, which has no ritual or
moral sense, but refers simply to the preparation of food for the sabbath.

96 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Passover day on whatever day of the week it might fall), but also
concerning the very manner of the [preceding] fast. For some think
that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more."
This practice Irenaeus expressly says
"has not originated in our time, but long before, in that of our
ancestors." "Forty hours" seems to have been the minimum period
of preliminary fasting. "A whole week" was the
general practice of the Church in Epiphanius' day (385
a.d.),2 which in our own has extended to the forty days
of Lent. The Gospel according to ihe Hebrews, which was
not far from contemporary with our own Matthew,
reflects a system of fasting from the evening of the
institution of the Supper to the Appearance to James
(1 Cor. 15 3 f.), which this Gospel related as the first
resurrection appearance to a disciple.3 Unfortunately
we cannot be sure what the interval was. At least it
was more than the "forty hours" between Jesus' death
and the bursting of the tomb. It may have coincided
with the "three days and three nights" of Mt. 12 40,
or may possibly have covered "a whole week." The
passage has not merely the dubious attestation of
Jerome, but is borrowed by him from the unimpeachable
authority of Origen. Its bearing will be manifest to all
who remember the importance attached in the second
century to the correct observance of fasts and feasts,
especially in the matter of time. After relating the
appearance to James, the narrative continued:
"For James had vowed that he would eat no bread from that hour
when he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him ris
ing from those that sleep."
2 Panar. 1, 1, 3; lxx, 12.
3 It is preceded by a leaving of the sindon (linen sheet) by the Risen One "with
the servant of the high priest," doubtless as a testimony unto them. Had this
Gospel a different version of Mk. 14 51 £., representing the loser of the sind5n as one
of the servants of the high priest?

AFTER SIX DAYS 97
It related next the Lord's loosing of the vow of absti
nence :
"Bring a table, said the Lord, and bread," and added: "He took
the bread, and blessed and brake it, and gave to James the Just, and
said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread; for the Son of man is
risen from among them that sleep."
Had we more of this fragment of the Palestinian Gos
pel we should probably be able to say just how long a
period of fasting before the Easter feast was commended
by the example of the Lord's brother in the interval
between his "drinking the cup of the Lord" and being
commanded to break his fast. As it is, we can only note
the ritual interest and phraseology of the fragment, and
its extremely early attestation to the observance of the
preparatory days of fasting, whether three or more in
number.4 Almost equally early and wide-spread is the attesta
tion to the observance of a preliminary period of fasting
before administration of baptism, the Church's other great
sacrament. The Teaching of the Twelve (100-125 a.d.) is
explicit in its prescription of "one or two days" of pre
liminary fasting before baptism (vii, 4), and in the Clem
entine writings this is treated as equally indispensable.
In Tertullian's day (210 a.d.) the preliminary days before
baptism were occupied with catechetic teaching, prayers,
vigils, and fasting. After the baptism there was further
observance of a retrospective or commemorative char
acter. The neophyte observed a week of abstinence
from washing of hands and face (abstinentia a lavacro).
4 It would be precarious to suggest a connection between Ev. Petri, vii, 26 f. and
the preparatory fast. The passage reads: "And I [Peter] with my companions was
grieved, and wounded to the heart we hid ourselves, for we were sought by them as
malefactors, and as desiring to burn the temple. And on account of all these things
we were fasting, and sat mourning and weeping night and day until the sabbath."
If there be connection, it implies observance of the fast only on Good Friday. It is
broken off by the sabbath, regardless of the fact that the disciples are still "weep
ing and grieving" (xiv, S9) at the end of the feast of unleavened bread, ignorant of
what has transpired at the sepulchre "during the night of the dawn of the Lord's
day" (ix, 35).

98 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
As we shall see, the tendency was strong to concentrate
baptisms so far as possible on a particular date, just as
observance of the Lord's Supper was focussed at the cele
bration at Easter. The date for baptisms was the feast
of Epiphany or Twelfth Night, i.e. the night of January
5-6, twelfth from the feast of the Nativity (December
24-25). This was the second greatest feast of the eccle
siastical year, commemorating the Baptism of Jesus, or as
the name "Epiphany" implies the "Manifestation" of his
glory. In later liturgies, such as the Mozarabic, the week
preceding Epiphany is occupied with such preparatory
observances as Tertullian prescribes for baptism.
The question for us to determine is whether these
religious observances are not in part even older than
Christianity, and whether some traces of them may not
be found on the pages of our own canonical Gospels, as
well as in writings which though uncanonical are sub
stantially contemporary.
In the Preface to my Beginnings of Gospel Story (1909,
page ix), I urged application in gospel criticism and inter
pretation of a method to be termed " aetiological," because
based on the working hypothesis that
"The motive of the biblical writers in reporting the tradition cur
rent around them is never strictly historical, but always aetiological,
and frequently apologetic. . . . The evangelic tradition consists of so
and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining
or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary Church."
The first requirement under this method would there
fore be a study of early ritual and belief, on the theory
that ritual reflects the significance found anciently in
the narrative. Its form, if not sometimes its origin,
would presumably be due to the observance, in cases
where we have reason to regard the observance as older
than the extant form of the story. The methods and
data of the historian of religion are here peculiarly ser
viceable in view of the well-known fact of the survival

AFTER SIX DAYS 99
in Christianity of earlier religious observances both
Jewish and Pagan.
The method is not altogether new. An example of
"aetiological" interpretation in common application
occurs in the correspondence commentators justly note
between the successive features of the Feeding of the
Multitude, as related no less than six times in the Gos
pels, and the ritual of the Agape. In both we have (1)
orderly arrangement of the multitude at evening, (2)
blessing and breaking of the bread by the presiding
minister, (3) distribution of the food, (4) collection of the
remnants by the deacons or almoners.
A further instance may be found in the Easter observ
ances to which reference has already been made. In my
volume just cited on page xxix, in speaking of the special
form of evangelic tradition current at Rome in the time
of our oldest Gospel (Mark, 75-80 a.d.), appeal is made to
our knowledge from the "Paschal" controversies of the
second century of the chronological difference between
Roman and Asiatic practice — a matter of vital importance
for the feeling of the period.5 The difference was already
of long standing when Polycarp visited Anicetus in
Rome (ca. 150 a.d.) ; the East claiming (with good reason)
the sanction of apostolic practice for celebrating the
"fourteenth" Nisan (whence the name "Quartodeci-
man") with "the [Jewish] people," regardless of the day
of the week. The West held it abhorrent "to celebrate
the sacred mystery of the Resurrection on any other
than the Lord's day."
Now the (Roman) Gospel of Mark has a remarkable
series of exact notations of time covering the whole
period of the Passion story — and no other — from the
6 Thus Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (ca. 300), quotes a Quartodeciman Trecen-
tius: "We have no other purpose than to keep the memory of his [Christ's] passion,
and at the time when those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses have handed
down." Cited by Drummond, Authorship and Character of Fourth Gospel, 1904,
p. 477.

100 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Anointing "in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper"
(Mk. 14 1-3) to the Resurrection. Moreover the time
is divided more minutely and exactly in proportion as the
culminating periods of ritual observance are approached.
The night of Vigil in Gethsemane, corresponding to the
vigil of Passover (Ex. 12 42), and the day of the Cruci
fixion are even divided into quarters, or "watches," of
three hours each (Mk. 14 17, 41, 72; 15 1, 25, 33, 34, 42),
each marked by its own significant event. Knowledge
of the importance anciently attached to (chronologically)
correct observance of the Easter vigil,6 fast, and feast,
suggests that these precise notes of time are made by the
(Roman) evangelist in the interest of ritual.
Thus on the eve of Good Friday "at evening" (Mk.
14 17) the Church celebrates its "Passover of the Lord."
Mark's narrative and its parallels explicitly note at the
close (ver. 25) that henceforth the observance is made
"new in the kingdom of God." The closing "hymn"
receives particular mention (ver. 26). Through the
midnight watches the Church keeps its Passover vigil7
(Ex. 12 42), remembering the boastful word of Peter, and
his denial of his Lord "at cock-crowing." The command
"Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation"
emphasized by the contrast of Jesus with the sleep
ing disciples, and by the remorse of unfaithful Peter,
occupies the salient point of the story (14 38, 72). Thus
again "at dawn" of the following day (Good Friday),
the Church recalls the "good Confession witnessed before
Pontius Pilate." The second watch is marked by the
Crucifixion "at the third hour."8 Next, at the midday
6 See above, note 5.
TvJt^n C^P^00° "Q^odecimanism" in my Fourth Gospel in Research and
Debate, 1910, pp. 412-439 The vigil with its readings from the Gospels («„
7*TO i AwT"*™"*) formed a constant feature of the observance, while
debate raged as to time and duration of the fasting.
the iStal? ^fri*"*"** sP»ifies the sentence to the cross as given "at

AFTER SIX DAYS 101
watch, comes the Darkness "at the sixth until the ninth
hour," with the parting cry "at the ninth hour." The
fourth watch ends with the Burial "when even [sunset]
was now come, it being the Preparation" [Friday].
The strongest proof that these exact notes of time in
the Synoptic (i.e. Markan) passion story are really made
in the interest of ritual is the singular contrast afforded
by the Fourth Gospel. This narrative has almost
equally minute notation for the chronology of the pas
sion period, but follows a different and irreconcilable
system. In John we have datings not by days of the
week (cf. Mk. 15 42), but by days of the (lunar) month
(Nisan). The reckoning begins as in Mark with the
Anointing (Jn. 12 1 ff. =Mk. 14 1 ff.); only according to
John this — or rather the Arrival in Bethany, sunset mark
ing the beginning of a new day — occurs not two but
six days before the passover. Doubtless Epiphanius9
is correct in connecting the story of the Anointing (five
days before passover according to Jn. 12 2) with the
Mosaic law for the "setting apart of the passover lamb"
(Ex. 12 3). Jewish ritual fixes this observance in fact
"on the tenth day" (of Nisan), i.e. five days before the
passover. Quartodecimans, who observed Easter coin-
cidently with the Jewish feast, and prided themselves
on their conformity herein to "the [Mosaic] law," "took
the sheep from the tenth day, recognizing the name of
Jesus from the iota" (i.e. the I of 'fyo-oOs, in numerical
value = 10). 10 Fortunately the Syriac Didascalia affords
positive confirmation of this obscure intimation of Epi
phanius, by declaring (c. xxi) that "on Monday tenth of
Nisan Jesus was in the house of Simon the Leper" (cf.
Mk. 14 3 with Jn. 12 If.).
The Johannine paschal datings continue (12 12) with
the Triumphal Entry "on the morrow" (Nisan 11?),
• Panar. 1, 3. 10 Epiphanius ibid.

102 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
followed (Nisan 12?) by a Withdrawal (12 36), which
concludes the public ministry. Jesus is henceforth with
"his own." Whatever uncertainty might exist as to
the dating of Entry and Withdrawal is corrected in the
next note of time; for when the story resumes (13 1 ff.)
it is still "before the passover" (Nisan 13). The Foot-
washing "after supper" marks the beginning of the
great day when "Christ our passover also hath been
sacrificed" (Nisan 14 — slaughter of the lambs), while
"the third day" after (Nisan 16, i.e. "Firstfruits") is the
day on which Christ rose "and became the Firstfruits
of them that slept." The hexaemeros begins with the
Anointing (Nisan 10), and culminates with the Resur
rection (Nisan 16).
So for the special day of vigil and fasting (Good
Friday). As in Synoptic tradition, the whole period is
divided in John also, but less minutely and on a different
plan. The night of vigil seems to be spent in discourse
and prayer until the coming of the betrayer, though
there is no mention of a command to watch, or of the
disciples' failure to five up to it, but only of Peter's
Denial, which is of course, by implication, at cock-
crowing.11 "At dawn" (18 28) comes the Confession be
fore Pilate, accompanied by a second positive intimation
that the passover feast is still to be celebrated (28 b).
"The sixth hour" (midday) is marked (19 14), contrary
to Synoptic tradition (cf. Mk. 15 25), as that of the
fateful Sentence to the Cross; but there is no further
note of time till the day closes with the burial at sunset.
Then we learn that it was "the Jews' Preparation"
(Friday). The following day, we are told (19 81), was
"a high day," which would of course follow from its
being both a sabbath (by weekly reckoning) and also
"Peculiarly strong evidence exists both textual and structural for regarding this
Z^SXSggg* *" ^^ ^ ^ 16'19) - S SUPPWlt *

AFTER SIX DAYS 103
First of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15). There is no
further note of time until the Resurrection before dawn
"on the first day of the week" (19 42; 20 l).
But to return to our hexaemeros, whose beginning is
so distinctly marked in Jn. 12 1 as "six days before
passover." The Crucifixion, as we have seen, coincides
with the slaughter of the passover lambs in the evening
of Nisan 14, the Resurrection with the offering of "first-
fruits" of the new harvest on Nisan 16. This coincidence
is no fancy of the modern critic, but corresponds, as
ancient Quartodecimans pointed out, with the two
figures of Paul in First Corinthians. Writing at the
season of Passover (16 9) he exhorts the Corinthians
first (1 Cor. 5 7 f.) to "put away the old leaven12 ... for
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" ; again he declares
(15 20, 23, 36 f.): "Now is Christ risen from the dead —
like the new corn from the seed — and become the 'first-
fruits' of them that slept." The latter of these two
figures is adopted in full by our evangelist (Jn. 12 24).
The very foundation of ancient Quartodeciman reason
ing was this correspondence of the Passion dates with
the Mosaic festal calendar. Quartodecimans pointed out
that
"The resurrection is a further witness (to the observance of Nisan
14). In point of fact (70 Op) [Christ] rose on the third day, which is
the first day of the season of the [seven] weeks of harvest, the day
on which it was commanded the priest to offer the sheaf." 13
Epiphanius (375 a.d.) found a way of harmonizing
Synoptic with Johannine chronology by rendering Lk.
22 7 "the day of unleavened bread came, on which they
should have sacrificed the passover" (i.e. unleavened
12 Putting away the old leaven is the ceremony which marks midday of Nisan
14^in the Jewish ritual. Hence the expression "the fourteenth, the day on which
the. [Jewish] people put away the leaven," in Polycrates of Ephesus (195 a.d.).
13 Clement of Alex. Fragment in Paschal Chron.

104 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
bread — Nisan 15 — came on, which the Jews, by error,
had counted as Nisan 14 when the lambs are sacrificed).14
The fault wliich he finds with the Quartodecimans is
that they do not go far enough with their conformation
to the Mosaic law. They confined their celebration to a
single day; whereas they ought to have chosen the sheep
on the tenth day, and so fasted for five days, thus con
forming to the general practice of the Church in cele
brating a whole week (i.e. until Firstfruits, Nisan 16). 15
In a word the passion-chronology of the Fourth Gos
pel is in the main carefully adapted to the ritual prac
tice which the Quartodecimans of Asia insisted they
had received in unbroken tradition from the apostles.
It justifies reckoning the chief date "with the [Jewish]
people"; but it also "celebrates a whole week." It
makes the Anointing in Bethany correspond with the
Setting apart of the Lamb on Nisan 10, the Crucifixion
with the Slaughter of the Lamb at evening of Nisan 14,
and the Resurrection with Firstfruits on Nisan 16.
On the other hand, it seeks a maximum of agreement
with Synoptic tradition by the statement (19 3l) that
"the day of that sabbath was a high day." This
establishes also the weekly fast and feast of primitive
Christian practice (cf. Mk. 2 20; 16 2), and produces a
partial harmony by assuming that "the Preparation of
the passover" (19 14) happened in that particular year
to be also "the Jews' Preparation" (i.e. a Friday), so
that the ensuing sabbath would be not only the seventh
day of the week, but doubly sacred because also the
"first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 15). "First-
"This harmonistic device is by no means origmal with Epiphanius. Eusebius
had previously employed it and even the Quartodecimans of the second centurv
accuse their opponents of "making the Gospels conflict," besides not obeying the
(Mosaic) law. Irenaeus who opposed the Quartodecimans, had a reverse system of
hannon.zui& adaptmg the Johannine to Synoptic chronology; but he does not ex-
plain now (Haer. n, xxu, 3).
15 Panar. 1, 1, 3; hex, 12.

AFTER SIX DAYS 105
fruits" on the morrow would therefore fall on "the first
day of the week."
The Syriac Didascalia thus appears to be justified
in reckoning the Anointing as "on Monday tenth of
Nisan," which implies the Royal Entry on Tuesday(?),
Withdrawal on Wednesday (?), Footwashing on Thurs
day, followed by Vigil (in the Upper Room), Betrayal
and Crucifixion on Friday, Rest in the grave on the
Sabbath, and Resurrection on Sunday.
Now if modern critics and commentators on the Syn
optic tradition, such as Heitmuller, are correct in speaking
of a Markan "scheme of six days" for passion week,16
it doubtless is intended to begin, like the Johannine,
with Monday; though in Synoptic tradition not the
Anointing in Bethany, but the Royal Entry (Mk. 11
l-ll) signalizes the day. We have thus in both tradi
tions a six-day period or hexaemeros leading up to the
great anniversary of the Resurrection. It is important
to observe, however, that the fundamental reckoning
of the fourth evangelist is annual, while the coincidence
of week-days is merely harmonistic and incidental. The
disciple who celebrated Holy Week according to the cal
endar of the Fourth Gospel would keep the Lord's Pass
over "on the day that the [Jewish] people put away the
leaven"17 (Nisan 14). This coincidence with the Jewish
feast would occur every year. He would occasionally
find himself in coincidence with Christians of Western
observance of Easter, i.e. whenever Nisan 14 happened
to fall on Friday. Both traditions, Synoptic as well
as Johannine, outline the events of passion week under
a "scheme of six days."
There is important confirmation of the "aetiological"
method and of the results already outlined, besides a
great intrinsic interest, in observing how the fourth evan-
16 Heitmuller, Jesus, 1913, p. 58.
17 The expression of Polycrates of Ephesus (195 a.d.).

106 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
gelist has prefaced his story of the public ministry of
Jesus with another hexaemeros of the Master with his
disciples. This sequence of days has even the appear
ance of leading over into the peculiar chronology of John,
in much the same way that the hexaemeros of the Priestly
Writer of the Pentateuch in Gen. 1 1-2 4 leads over into
the chronological system of the sacerdotal law. In this
case the feast is that which Chrysostom designates "the
first [i.e. of the year], Epiphany." It was especially
honored in the East, and was in fact the counterpart of
Easter, having among its other functions that of the
sending out from Alexandria of the famous annual
"Paschal letters," which fixed the ecclesiastical calendar
for the year.
Every observant reader is struck at once on comparing
the Johannine with the earlier Gospels by the large place
the fourth evangelist gives, after the Prologue, to a Self-
revelation of Jesus to his Disciples at the Baptism of
John (Jn. 1 19-2 ll). This self -revelation is described
as occurring in a sequence of six days and culminates in
the Miracle at Cana of Galilee on the seventh. In fact
from the point where the Baptist bears his "witness that
this is the Son of God" and points Jesus out as "the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,"
down to the "manifestation of his glory" which convinces
the disciples in Cana, we have in this series of presenta
tions of Jesus in his various messianic functions a com
plete anticipation of the Synoptic story of the Confession
of Peter, Prediction of the Cross, Promise of the Parousia
and Transfiguration (Mk. 8 27-9 8 and parallels).
Were we to classify the Gospels in accordance with our
knowledge of early ritual observance in the Church, we
should characterize the Fourth, which begins with the
manifestation of Jesus to be the Son of God, as an "Epiph
any" Gospel; whereas Matthew and Luke, each of which
prefixes to Mark an account of Jesus' miraculous birth

AFTER SIX DAYS 107
should be called "Nativity" Gospels. Mark is the com
mon starting-point; but its statement of the divine son-
ship is manifestly regarded by all as inadequate, Matthew
and Luke developing in one direction, John in the other.
The development of ritual has light to throw upon the
matter. Ancient observance wavered between the dies natalis,
and the dies natalis virtutum domini. The Gnostic sects
even observed the date of Jesus' baptism by John as the
"birthday of the Saviour" (y&iffkia. rov Swt??pos), because, as
they maintained,
"It was not till [the Aeon] Christ descended into Jesus (Mk. 1 10 f.)
that he began to do miracles and to heal and reveal the unknown
Father, and declare himself openly the Son of the first man."18
The earlier Gnostics naturally admitted only the Gospel
of Mark.19 Later they gladly availed themselves of
the Gospel of John. The Church catholic, on the other
hand, in its two more recent Gospels of Matthew and
Luke, had meantime supplied the deficiencies of Mark,
removing by means of their accounts of Jesus' birth as
"Son of God" (Lk. 1 35) the opportunity Mark had
afforded to interpret the title "Son of God" in a Docetic
or Adoptionist sense. This effort to counteract Gnostic
tendencies in the later Synoptic Gospels, also reflected
in the second clause of the Apostles' Creed, appears again
in very marked degree in the development of ritual
observance. The orthodox (especially in the West)
emphasized the Nativity, and deprecated the Gnostic
disposition to magnify Epiphany as the significant feast.
Thus the eighteenth of the letters of Leo (440-481 a.d.)
protests to the Sicilian bishops against the tendency
there prevalent to regard the baptism of Jesus as having
borne the same import for him and conveyed the same
grace as the baptism of believers to them. Pope
18 Irenaeus, Haer. I, xxx, 13. Specifically "Cerinthus" in xxvi, 1.
19 Irenaeus, Haer. IH, xi, 7.

108 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Siricius (385) had protested against the custom of bap
tizing at Epiphany for this same reason. At first in
the East the Nativity was celebrated on the same day
as the Feast of the Baptism (January 6), the ancient Feast
of the Epiphany of Dionysus. Later in Rome and the
West it was celebrated on December 25, the Juhan winter
solstice, or dies invicti solis. This Roman date grad
ually took the place of January 6, so that Epiphanius
even goes so far as to fix a new date (November 8) for the
Baptism. To quote (in abstract) the clear and scholarly
article of Professor Kirsopp Lake ("Epiphany" in the
Dictionary of Religion and Ethics) :
"In the fourth century in Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria,
and probably elsewhere, before December 25th had been accepted as
the date of the Nativity, January 6th was observed as the feast both
of the Nativity and the Baptism. Silvia's account of her pilgrimage
(325 a.d.) shows that in Jerusalem January 6th was observed as the
feast of the Nativity. Whether it was also (in Jerusalem) the feast
of the Baptism is doubtful. F. C. Conybeare's researches into
Armenian ritual seem to prove the Armenian a combination of the
Jerusalem rite celebrating the Nativity and a Greek rite (Alexan
drian or Antiochian) celebrating the Baptism."
H The meaning of this is that in Jerusalem, as elsewhere,
orthodox ritual felt the dangers still attaching to the
observance of the ancient (pagan) feast of the Epiphany
¦i<)f Dionysus. The ritual for this feast, almost exactly
. as described by Epiphanius for the Koraeon, or Temple
I of Kopj? (the Virgin goddess) at Alexandria, is repeated
to this day on December 24-25 in the Church of the
'Nativity in Bethlehem.20 With the Gospels of Matthew
20 Those who, like the present writer, have attended the all-night observance of
Dec. 24-25 in Bethlehem will think themselves almost to be reading an account of
this Christian ritual in Epiphanius' description. The feast of Kdpy (Virgin mother
of Dionysus) was celebrated on Jan. 6. The preceding night (Jan. 5-6) was spent
in singing and worship of the images of the gods. At dawn descent in procession
was made to the crypt, bringing up thence a wooden image which had the sign of
the cross and a star of gold on hands, knees, and head. After being carried in pro
cession this was returned to the crypt. The Virgin (Kdpri) was declared to have
given birth to the Aeon. Compare with this the present-day ritual for Dec. 24-25
at Bethlehem.

AFTER SIX DAYS 109
and Luke Jerusalem observance first makes the primitive
celebration of Epiphany, or "Manifestation" of Godhood,
a celebration of divine birth." Ultimately under Roman
influence it adopts a new date. The Fourth Gospel, on
the other hand, remains true to the primitive sense of the
Markan tradition. It ignores the birth stories, and
treats "the beginning of the gospel" as a Manifestation
of the Godhood, first to the Baptist, at Jordan, after
ward to the disciples at Cana. The interval between the
two is a six-day period of didactic preparation.
The fourth evangelist is not only "spiritual," but con
servative and harmonistic. Gnostic misconstruction is
met in two ways. We have first a Prologue presenting
a Pauline doctrine of Incarnation, which ends with the
explicit declaration (1 14 ff.) that the Logos "became
flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory."
As Irenaeus justly observes,21 "According to the opinion
of no one of the heretics was the Logos of God made flesh."
Secondly, the Baptism itself, so misused in the interest
of Docetic and Adoptionist tendencies, is now thrown
completely into the background. The reader only learns of
it by implication (1 32 f.), while every device of language is
employed to make unmistakably clear that its significance
is exclusively declaratory (1 19-27, 33). John's baptism
is purely and solely that John may " see and bear witness
that this is the Son of God." Its significance to the
(supposably) repentant multitudes who were also baptized
is absolutely ignored. To Jesus it has none.
We are(not)now concerned primarily with this general
contrast between Epiphany gospels and Nativity gospels.
It is enough merely to point out the difference of the
fourth evangeUst's method from that of the second and
third for meeting the misuse of Mark. We propose to
deal merely with the chronological framework in which
the fourth evangelist has compacted all that he has to
a Haer. Ill, xi, 3.

110 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
tell of Jesus' Self-manifestation to the Disciples, noting
that he combines the Synoptic traditions of the Declara
tion of the Baptist, the Call of the First Disciples and
the Declaration of the Messiahship and Confession of
Peter at Caesarea Philippi into a great complex of Wit
ness to Jesus as "Son of God" (1 34), "Lamb of God"
(1 29, 36), "Messiah, which is being interpreted Christ"
(41), "him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets
did write" (45), and finally (51) "Son of man." The
point to be brought out is that here as at the close of his
narrative the evangelist has divided his material into
the form of a hexaemeros, culminating "on the third day"
after the declaratory discourses (1 19-51) in a symbolic
"beginning of his signs in Cana of Galilee," where Jesus
"manifested his glory and his disciples believed on him."
It is fortunately possible to prove that the early ori
ental Church understood this "sign" of the turning of
the water into wine following upon the Baptism "in
Bethany beyond Jordan" (Jn. 1 28) with the Self -revela
tion to the Disciples, as really belonging to the Feast of
Epiphany on January 6th, just as it understood the
Anointing in (the other) Bethany, the Triumphal Entry,
Footwashing, Crucifixion and Resurrection, as belonging
to the feast of "the Passover of the Lord" which con
stituted its other great Holy Week.
As regards the antiquity of Christian veneration for
the feast of the Baptism of Jesus we have testimony
beyond all dispute. Clement of Alexandria describes the
followers of the arch-gnostic Basilides (ca. 125 a.d.) as
celebrating it on January 6th (11th Tybi), the date of the
Epiphany of Dionysus. Some, however, observed Janu
ary 10th.22 As with the pagan festival in the Koraeon,
the preceding night was spent as a preparatory vigil,
V ^Tybi 15. This was probably to conform to the Basilidean system of thirties
and halves of thirty. Jesus was thirty years of age. His ministry covered fifteen
years of the reign of Augustus and fifteen of that of Tiberius, &c.

AFTER SIX DAYS 111
"readings" taking the place in the Christian rite of the
"singing and worship of the images" in the pagan.23
Was there, besides this vigil corresponding to the vigil
of the resurrection feast, an observance of preliminary
days more or fewer in number? It is difficult to trace
back in orthodox observance just what days of prepara
tion may have been prescribed for the great "first feast"
of the year. In the Mozarabic or Spanish missal, as
well as in the Breviary, there is first mention of a "Sun
day before Epiphany"; next a mass injejunio Epiphaniae,
i.e., a fast of three days covering January 3-5. This is
doubtless primarily intended for catechumens in prep
aration for baptism, January 6th being the favorite date.
That these preliminary days were occupied with the
"laying of the foundation of repentance from dead works
and faith toward God," follows from all our knowledge
of the "teachings of baptisms" and of the primitive
system of catechetics. But it is apparent that usage
differed. Just as in the case of the preparation for
Easter, as described by Irenaeus: "Some think they
should fast one day, others two, yet others more." By
the time of Epiphanius "a whole week" of observance
(not of course unbroken fasting) was the general practice
of the Church before Easter. All we can be sure of is
that the practice of baptizing at Epiphany made neces
sary a preliminary period of teaching as well as the days
of fasting and night of vigil.
Is it then unreasonable to trace a connection between
the "six days" of "teaching" which according to Mark
9 2 and Mt. 17 1 separate the Self-declaration of Jesus
as the Christ to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi from
the "theophany" of the Transfiguration, and the Johan
nine six days which intervene between the Witness of the
Baptist that this is the Son of God, and the "Manifes
tation of his glory" to the disciples? The parallelism in
23 Strom. I, xxi, 146, koprbXovai. irpoSiavvKrepeiovres iv kvayvkotai.

1T2 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
content of teaching is not unsupported by traces of ritual
interest even in the Synoptists. For the theophany is
given at the close of a night of vigil wherein the drowsi
ness of "Peter, James, and John" is contrasted with the
prayerful watching of Jesus, as in the story of Gethsemane
(Lk. 9 32), and the Johannine preliminary days have as
their content an equivalent for the teaching at Caesarea
Philippi.24 Unfortunately we have no clear Hght from primitive
practice beyond the data already given to determine
whether the "teaching of baptisms" or other services
preceding Epiphany covered this exact number of days,
or only something like it. Our use of the term
hexaemeros, is somewhat general, meaning days of
preparation for a sacred occasion like those leading up
to the sabbath in Gen. 1 1-2 4, or those leading up to the
theophany to Moses in Ex. 24 16, whether an exact
correspondence of day for day can be traced or not.
If, however, we simply take the notes of time as given
in the Johannine account of the Witness to Jesus at his
Baptism and Manifestation of his Glory to the Dis
ciples in Jn. 1 19-2 11, we shall have the following
succession of days: Day one: John's Proclamation of his
Mission to Baptize in "Bethany beyond Jordan," 1
19-28. Day two: John's Witness to Jesus "on the
morrow," 29-34. Day three: Sending of the two First
Disciples to Jesus, who begin to learn of him "about
the tenth hour," 35-42. Day four: "on the morrow,"
full Self-declaration of Jesus to the Disciples, including
Confession of Peter and Promise of the Revelation of
the Son of man, 43-51. At this point follows a vacant day
like the sabbath after the crucifixion — day ./we — and "on
24 The variant of Lk. 9 28 — "about eight days" — would merely indicate the back
ward instead of the forward look; as the later Church spoke of "the octave" of
Epiphany. To Luke the Confession of Peter would be the Epiphany and the Trans
figuration its "octave." To Mark and Matthew it would be the beginning of
preparation.

AFTER SIX DAYS 113
the third day" is the Wedding at Cana— day six— 2 1.
The miracle by which Jesus "manifested his glory and his
disciples believed on him" (2 li) follows in the evening.
It comes therefore at the beginning of the seventh day from
the Baptism, in which it was given to John to "see and
bear witness that this is the Son of God."
For completeness' sake a possible explanation should
be added of the single minuter note of time relating to
the precise hour when on the third day the first dis
ciples accepted Jesus' invitation and placed themselves
under his instruction through the night until the ensuing
morning (1 39). If the aetiological method be applied,
it will appear more reasonable to compare such ritual
notes as Mk. 15 25, 33 f., and Jn. 19 14, than to imagine
the evangelist cherishing a sentimental regard for the
precise hour of his first contact with Jesus.
In my volume, The Fourth Gospel in Research and
Debate, 1910, I cited the following fact:
"A very ancient note of time embodied in the 'Western' text of
Acts 19 9 informs us that Paul's preaching 'in the school of Tyran-
nus* at Ephesus, was 'daily from the fifth to the tenth hour.'"
If the independent indications of acquaintance on the
part of this "Western" interpolator with early conditions
in Phrygia justify us in looking upon this as evidence
that in Ephesus public preaching customarily ended
"at the tenth hour," this would be the natural time to
begin the instruction of catechumens.
Further indications are not wanting to lead us to
look upon this Johannine story of the Declaration of
the Son of God and the Manifestation of his Glory in
a Beginning of Miracles somewhat as a series of les
sons for Epiphany. But on these we cannot dwell.
Limitations of space forbid also that we should here
consider the noteworthy connection between the two
groups of narratives which Mark has placed the one

114 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
at the opening of the Galilean Ministry, the other at the
beginning of the Journey to Calvary (Mk. 1 1-39 and 8
27-9 29). In each case we have a declaration of Jesus
to be the Son of God, followed by a Manifestation of
bis Glory, though on the former occasion the Mani
festation consists of a Beginning of Miracles at the great
Sabbath in Capernaum (Mk. 1 14-39). In each case we
have a Voice from Heaven declaring the Sonship, and
an Opposition between Sonship "according to the things
that be of God," and "the things that be of men."
We even have the Rebuke of the Tempter in the same
words,25 although in the Temptation story it is literally
Satan who presents the lower ideal, whereas at Caesarea
Philippi it is Peter(!). In each case we have, finally,
suggestions of the prayers, fastings, and vigils of Jesus,
in greater or less contrast with the disciples (cf. Mk. 1
13, 35-39 and parallels, with 9 4-6 and parallels). Jn. 1
19-2 11, considered as lessons for Epiphany, would com
bine the essential factors of both these Synoptic occa
sions, as we have seen; while Jn. 2 12 briefly dismisses
the Markan account of the Beginning of Miracles. Upon
this correspondence we cannot delay, because the really
decisive evidence connecting the Johannine hexaemeros
with Epiphany is as yet untouched.
The reader in any degree open to the suggestions
^already made must surely begin to ask: Is there any
clear proof connecting this portion of the Fourth Gospel
with the ancient celebration of Epiphany on January
6th as the Feast of the Baptism of Christ and Mani
festation of his divine Powers (natalis virtutum)? And
if such connection exists, can it be proved that the ob
servances are not dependent on the Gospel, instead of
conversely? The fact is indisputable that in all the
26 Mark does not indeed give the moral content of the Temptation story, but
only states the fact (1 13). The moral content is reserved for 8 27-33; but the
occurrence of the Rebuke (8 33) in the very words of Mt. 4 10 cannot be acci
dental, and the transfer is the significant point.

AFTER SIX DAYS , 115
most ancient rituals Jn. 2 1-11 is the lesson for Epiphany;
even the West, when transferring the significance of the
feast to the Coming of the Magi, still retaining the Wed
ding in Cana as part of the lesson. But may it not be
that the Beginning of Miracles was chosen simply from
appropriateness? Why suppose that Jn. 2 1-11 was
written to fit the occasion?
The answer is apparent to all who know the real an
tiquity of the Feast of the Epiphany, and the nature of
its pre-Christian observance. For January 6 was not
chosen to commemorate the Baptism of Jesus and Mani
festation ("Epiphany") of his divine power because of a
historical tradition that he was actually baptized on
January 6, any more than December 25 was chosen
because of a historical tradition that the dies invicti solis
happened to be Jesus' real birthday. The date, January
6, was chosen because in Egypt and throughout the orien
tal world it had been from time immemorial the feast of
the "Epiphany of Dionysus," the god of returning light
and life. The proof that Jn. 2 l-ll is written with an
eye_to the celebration of this Feast of Epiphany (in
Christianized form) and not conversely, is the fact that
the "Beginning of Miracles" substituted by the fourth
evangelist for the Markan exorcisms and healings in
Capernaum is an unmistakable parallel to the wonders
told in Egypt, Arabia, Phoenicia, Ionia, and doubtless
elsewhere also, of the Epiphany of Dionysus. For as
Pliny, Pausanias, and a host of writers both heathen and
Christian make clear, the turning of water to wine at
his festival on January 5-Q was the typical wonder of
the god of the vine.26 In some sanctuaries of the god
26 Pliny, Nat. Hist. H, 231, relates of the consul Mucianus that he believed the
story, Andro in insula templo Liberi patris fontem nonis Januariis semper vini sapo-
rem fundere. Cf. Pausanias, VI, xxvi, 1, 2. Athenaeus, I, 61, p. 34a, relates of a
place arrixw fori) araSia rijs 'HXeias, iv 4 "l £yx<>>P'0' KaraKXelovres tois Aiovvalots
X<x\kovs Xkfhyras rpeis xevois ¦n-a.phvriav rS>v 'en-iZinu>bvTav inroa^payliovraL Kai iartpov
ivolyovrts eiplaKovaiv olvov weirXripu/iivovs. See a long list of further authorities cited
by Walter Bauer Hdb. z. N. T., Johev., ad loc.

116 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the miracle was performed on water contained in stone
or brass receptacles; in other localities the spring or
stream itself was turned to wine on the anniversary.
Epiphanius knows of the belief as attaching to the
wondrous Nile as well as to the marvellous springs of
Petra and Gerasa. He had himself tasted the water
changed to wine at Cibyra in Caria.27 The change took
place, he expressly says, annually, at Epiphany, on the
anniversary of the miracle at Cana.
In the case of streams like the Nile and the Adonis
(Nahr Ibrahim) where the change of color at time of
flood has produced legends traceable to a remote antiq
uity, the physical origin of the legend is unmistakable.
Thus the "green water" of the Nile at Cairo at "low
Nile," produced by quantities of algae from the
swamps of the Soudan, passes away with the first rise
(early in July), the algae being unable to five in turbid
water. "By August the river in lower Egypt is full of dark, red-brown
sediment, brought down by the Blue Nile and the Atbara." 28
That the pagan legend of the blood of the slaughtered
Osiris cast into the Nile has its origin in this phenomenon
of the rapid change in color at the beginning of flood
from "green" to "dark red-brown," will not be doubted
even by those who hesitate to attribute a similar origin
to the biblical story of Moses' turning its waters to blood.
The same is of course true of the legend of the slaugh
tered Adonis and the Adonis river, which annually at
the beginning of flood (January) discolors the whole
Mediterranean off the shore at Byblus (Jebeel) with its
blood-red sediment. But we are concerned simply with
the antiquity and extent of the Dionysiac legends of the
27 Panar. li.
28 P. R. Cana in Ene. Brit. ed. xi, *.«."Nile."

AFTER SIX DAYS 117
turning of water to wine on January 6th.29 Additional
evidence of so well attested a fact is hardly required;
but it is well to note that the modern custom (in Russia
and elsewhere) of blessing streams and rivers at Epiph
any (January 6) goes back not only to Christian but
into pre-Christian antiquity.30 It was the day in which
Christ by his baptism had "consecrated the streams of
Jordan," as Ignatius himself (115 a.d.) writes to the
Ephesians (xviii) of the passion of Jesus as "cleansing
water" (cf. Jn. 2 4). Hence one of the functions of the
day was the solemn consecration of water for baptisms
throughout the year. Just as the modern pilgrim still
obtains his bottle of water for baptisms from Jordan at
the place of the Baptizing, so in pagan times, as we
learn from Aristides Rhetor (135 a.d.), it was part of
the vSoebais (i.e. Water-festival) in Alexandria on Tybi
11 (January 6) to draw water and store it up for pur
poses of lustration. This water was exported like the
modern Jordan water, and was supposed to improve with
age like wine.31
Finally, Epiphany as the "first feast" came to have the
same calendar importance for the Church as the Rosh-ha-
shanah for the Synagogue. For on it the "Paschal let
ters" were sent out to determine the fasts and feasts of
the ecclesiastical year.
It may, of course, be mere coincidence that the
hexaemeros with which the Fourth Gospel begins, has its
28 Egyptian datings are of course different. Variants arise from causes both
physical and religious. The flood of Nile begins in July, not January. On the other
hand, the calendar is largely determined by astral phenomena, so that sun-myths and
nature-myths intermingle. Finally, the Egyptian calendar rotates through the year,
the Egyptian year being defective.
30 The same Maximus Taurinensis who speaks of Epiphany as the dies natalis
virtutum (sc. Domini), gives three alternative traditions of the origin of its observ
ance: Ferunt enim hodie Christum Dominum nostrum vel (1) stella duce a gentibus
adoratum, vel (2) invitatum ad nuptias aquas in vino vertisse, vel (3) succepto a
Iohanne baptismate consecrasse fluenta Jordanis (Hom. xxix).
31 Oratio, Oxford ed. of 1730, ii, 573 and 612. Cited by Lake in Dictionary
of Religion and Ethics, s.v. "Epiphany."

118 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
start on New Year's Day of the Juhan calendar (Jan
uary 1). The "Witness of John" to the Jews (1 19-28),
like his baptism of Jesus, falls appropriately within the
limits of the old year; for John, though greatest of the
prophets, is less than the least in the kingdom of God.
But "on the morrow" he proclaims Jesus as "Lamb of
God," Giver of "the Spirit," and "Son of God" (29-34).
This (if the evangelist has the beginning of the year in
mind) would be January 1. For the Confession of
Peter "on the morrow" (35-42) falls thus on January 2,
the Promise of the Revelation of the Son of man given
"on the morrow" (43-51) falls on January 3, the Arrival
in Cana "on the third day" falls on January 5, and the
Changing of the Water of "the Jews' Purifications" to
the New Wine of the Kingdom of God takes place in the
evening of January 5-6, i.e. on "Twelfth Night," or
Epiphany. However the case may be with this possibility of an
attempted adjustment in Jn. 1 19-2 11 to the Juhan
calendar, as in Cappadocia was the practice for the ob
servance of Easter,32 it is highly probable that the
synchronism with the rebuilding of the temple, in the
story of the beginning of the public ministry, which in
Jn. 2 13-22 follows immediately after the Manifestation
"to the Disciples," has been purposely adapted to mark
the birth of Jesus as synchronous with the rebuilding of
the temple and consequently his death as occurring
when he had lived exactly a jubilee of years (7 X 7 = 49).
For, as we have shown in the work already cited,33 the
"year of the two Gemini" (29 a.d.) was an accepted date
for the Crucifixion from the very earliest period to which
our sources reach back. And yet this date is certainly
82 The Cappadocian Quartodecimans adopted March 25, i.e. vernal equinox of the
Julian calendar, in every year as their fixed date for the Feast of the Resurrection.
See Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 1910, p. 391 ff.
"Fourth Gospel, &c., p. 390 ff.

AFTER SIX DAYS 119
incorrect; for no method of calculating the incidence of
passover permits it to fall on either a Thursday or a
Friday in 29 a.d. The date 29 a.d. for the Crucifixion
is artificial, like the elaborate datings of the Jewish
rabbis, and like those of Hippolytus and the later
Christian chronographers. But it is the chronological
starting-point for both Luke and John. Only the fourth
evangelist looks upon Jesus as older "when he began."
The synchronism of Jn. 2 20, substituted for Lk. 3 l f. at
approximately the same point in the story, means (as it
was understood to mean by the author of de montibus
Sina et Sion) that Jesus attained, either at this passover
or the next, the age of 47 years. At the passover of Jn.
6 4 he had therefore attained 48 years, at the ensuing
feast of tabernacles of Jn. 7 2 he was "not yet fifty years
old " (8 57) ; but at the passover of the crucifixion he had
attained 49 (i.e. 7X7) years, so that the beginning of his
fiftieth or "jubilee" year marked "the hour when he
should be glorified."
This interpretation of the calendar and chronology
of the fourth evangelist implies of course that he does
not accept the statement of Lk. 3 23 that "Jesus when
he began (his ministry) was about thirty years of age."
But what is the real source and value of this Lukan
date? In my article "Lukan vs. Johannine Chronol
ogy"34, and the further discussion of the subject in the
volume already referred to,35 I endeavored to show that
the item Lk. 3 23 stands absolutely alone, though its
clear and positive statement has carried everything before
it in later attempts to fix the date of Jesus' birth.
Matthew's narrative certainly implies that he was much
older. Luke's own sources imply that he was born "in
the days of Herod the king" (Lk. 1 5), if not that he had
"fully attained the age of forty years" when he began
M Expositor, vii, 15 (March, 1907), pp. 206-220.
86 Fourth Gospel, &c., ch. xv.

120 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
his ministry (Ac. 7 23). Moreover the ancient tradition
of "the elders" derived by Irenaeus36 from Papias,
that Jesus had fully attained the age of the teacher
(forty years), when he began to teach, is by no means to
be lightly disregarded. But while able to show that the
thirty-year item was in conflict with earlier tradition,
and suspecting that it stood connected with the system
of reckoning by fifteens and thirties characteristic of
the Basilidean chronography, I was not then able to
point to any specific passage to which it might be traced.
I may venture now to refer to the statement of Jerome
in his commentary on Ezekiel concerning the current
interpretation of Ezek. 1 1. He tells us that the date,
"In the thirtieth year," was usually understood of the
prophet's age,37 but while denying this goes on to explain
that "the fourth month in the fifth day of the month"
means January fifth "the day still observed as Epiph
any," and that "symbolically" Ezekiel in saying "In
the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, the fifth
day of the month, the heavens were opened and I saw
visions of God" is "prefiguring the Lord and Saviour,
who came to his baptism at thirty years of age, which
for man is the age of maturity." Thereafter in spite
of his rejection of the current interpretation Jerome
adds:
" It must also be understood that the Lord came to baptism in the
thirtieth year of his age, in the fourth month, that which among us
is called January and stands first at the opening of the year. . . .
And he [Ezekiel] adds 'the fifth day of the month' to signify the
baptism, at which 'the heavens were opened' to Christ, and this is
still the adorable day of Epiphany."38
I cannot but think that in this ancient dating of
Epiphany on the basis of Ezek. 1 1, as occurring on
36 Haer. II, xxii, 5. The whole chapter is significant.
87 Non, ut plerique aestimant, tricesimus annus aetatis prophetae dicitur.
38 Comm. in Ezek. ad loc.

AFTER SIX DAYS 121
January 5, in the thirtieth year of Jesus' age, we have
the real origin of the unique statement of Lk. 3 23, that
when "the heavens were opened" to Jesus, and he "saw
visions of God" and began his ministry, "he was about
thirty years of age." The fourth evangelist has the
same dating for Epiphany, but holds that Jesus had
nearly attained the age of -fifty years. Irenaeus, as we
know, attempts to reconcile the two by extending the
ministry over a period of twenty (!) years.39
*• Haer. H, xxii.