impossible to decide between Passover and Tabernacles.  The omission of the article suggests either that the feast was of minor importance, or that its identification was of no significance for the understanding of the following discourse.  Since a year and four months probably elapsed between the journey into Galilee (Jn. iv. 35) and the next Passover mentioned in John (vi. 4), v. 1 may refer to any one of the feasts of the Jewish year.  The commonest interpretation prefers Purim, a festival of a secular and somewhat hilarious type, which occurred on the 14th and 15th of Adar, a month before the Passover.  It is difficult to believe that this feast would have called Jesus to Jerusalem.  See WeissLX II. 391; GilbertLJ 137-139, 142, 234-235.  Against this interpretation see EdersLJM II. 765.  Edersheim advocates the feast of Wood Gathering on the 15th of Ab—­about our August.  On this day all the people were permitted to offer wood for the use of the altar in the temple, while during the rest of the year the privilege was reserved for special families.  See LJM II 765f.; Westcott, Comm. on John, add. note on v. 1, argues for the feast of Trumpets, or the new moon of the month Tisri,—­about our September,—­which was celebrated as the beginning of the civil year.  Others have suggested Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover; the day of Atonement—­but this was a fast, not a feast; and Tabernacles.  The majority of those who do not favor Purim prefer the Passover, notwithstanding the difficulty of thinking that John would refer to this feast simply as “a feast of the Jews.”  Read AndLOL 193-198, remembering that the question must be considered independently of the question of the length of Jesus’ ministry.  The impossibility of determining the feast renders the adjustment of this visit to the synoptic story very uncertain.  It may be that there was some connection between the Sabbath controversy in Galilee (Mk. ii. 23-28) and the criticism Jesus aroused in Jerusalem (Jn. v.).  If so, one of the spring feasts, Passover or Pentecost, would best suit the circumstances; but this arrangement is quite uncertain.

55. Do the five conflicts of Mk. ii. 1 to iii. 6 belong at the early place in the ministry of Jesus to which that gospel assigns them?  It is commonly held that they do not, and the argument for a two-year ministry rests on this assumption (see SandayHastBD II. 613).  Holtzmann, Hand-commentar I. 9f., remarks that at least for the cure of the paralytic and for the call and feast of Levi (Mk. ii. 1, 13, 15) the evangelist was confident that he was following the actual order of events; note the call of the fifth disciple, Mk. ii. 13, between the call of the four, Mk. i. 16-20, and that of the twelve, iii. 16-19.  The question about fasting may owe its place (Mk. ii. 18-22) to association with the criticism of Jesus for eating with publicans (Mk. ii. 16).  In like manner the second Sabbath conflict (Mk. iii. 1-6) may be attached to the first (ii. 23-28)