Absolute chronology

The incidents whose absolute chronology may be determined with more or less probability are the year of Christ's nativity, of the beginning of His public life, and of His death. As we cannot fully examine the data entering into these several problems, the reader ought to compare what has been said on these points in the article BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY.

The Nativity

St. Matthew (2:1) tells us that Jesus was born "in the days of King Herod". Josephus (Ant., XVII, viii, 1) informs us that Herod died after ruling thirty four years de facto, thirty seven years de jure. Now Herod was made rightful king of Judea A.U.C. 714, while he began his actual rule after taking Jerusalem A.U.C. 717. As the Jews reckoned their years from Nisan to Nisan, and counted fractional parts as an entire year, the above data will place the death of Herod in A.U.C. 749, 750, 751. Again, Josephus tells us from that an eclipse of the moon occurred not long before Herod's death; such an eclipse occurred from 12 to 13 March, A.U.C. 750, so that Herod must have died before the Passover of that year which fell on 12 April (Josephus, "Ant"., iv, 4; viii, 4). As Herod killed the children up to two years old, in order to destroy the new born King of the Jews, we are led to believe that Jesus may have been born A.U.C. 747, 748, 749. The enrollment under Cyrinus mentioned by St. Luke in connection with the nativity of Jesus Christ, and the remarkable astronomical conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in Pisces, in the spring of A.U.C. 748, will not lead us to any more definite result.

Beginning of the public ministry

The date of the beginning of Christ's ministry may be calculated from three different data found respectively in Luke 3:23; Josephus, "Bel. Jud." I, xxi, 1; or "Ant.", XV, ii, 1; and Luke 3:1.

The first of these passages reads: "And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years". The phrase "was beginning" does not qualify the following expression "about the age of thirty years", but rather indicates the commencement of the public life. As we have found that the birth of Jesus falls within the period 747-749 A.U.C., His public life must begin about 777-779 A.U.C.

Second, when, shortly before the first Pasch of His public life, Jesus had cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, the Jews said: "Six and forty years was this temple in building" (John 2:20). Now, according to the testimony of Josephus (loc. cit.), the building of theTemple began in the fifteenth year of Herod's actual reign or in the eighteenth of his reign de jure, i.e. 732 A.U.C.; hence, adding the forty six years of actual building, the Pasch of Christ's first year of public life must have fallen in 778 A.U.C.

Third, the Gospel of St. Luke (3:1) assigns the beginning of St. John the Baptist's mission to the "fifteenth year of the Tiberius Caesar".Augustus, the predecessor of Tiberius, died 19 August, 767 A.U.C., so that the fifteenth year of Tiberius's independent reign is 782 A.U.C.; but then Tiberius began to be associate of Augustus in A.U.C. 764, so that the fifteenth year reckoned from this date falls in A.U.C. 778.Jesus Christ's public life began a few months later, i.e. about A.U.C. 779.

The year of the death of Christ

According to the Evangelists, Jesus suffered under the high priest Caiphas (A.U.C. 772-90, or A.D. 18-36), during the governorship ofPontius Pilate A.U.C. 780-90). But this leaves the time rather indefinite. Tradition, the patristic testimonies for which have been collected by Patrizi (De Evangeliis), places the death of Jesus in the fifteenth (or sixteenth) year of Tiberius, in the consulship of the Gemini, forty-two years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. We have already seen that the fifteenth year of Tiberius is either 778 or 782, according to its computation from the beginning of Tiberius's associate or sole reign; the consulship of the Gemini (Fufius and Rubellius) fell in A.U.C. 782; the forty second year before the destruction of Jerusalem is A.D. 29, or A.U.C. 782, twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles brings us to the same year, A.D. 29 or A.U.C. 782, since the conversion of Cornelius, which marks the opening of the Gentile missions, fell probably in A.D. 40 or 41.

The day of the death of Christ

Jesus died on Friday, the fifteenth day of Nisan. That He died on Friday is clearly stated by Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and John 19:31. The few writers who assign another day for Christ's death are practically lost in the multitude of authorities who place it on Friday. What is more, they do not even agree among themselves: Epiphanius, e.g., places the Crucifixion on Tuesday; Lactantius, on Saturday; Westcott, on Thursday; Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours, not on Friday.

The first three Evangelists are equally clear about the date of the Crucifixion. They place the Last Supper on the fourteenth day of Nisan, as may be seen from Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17 and Luke 22:7-14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John's agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The supper was held "before the festival day of thePasch" (John 13:1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, as may be seen from Matthew 22:7-14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John's agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The Supper was held "before the festival day of thepasch" (John 13:1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, since the sacrificial day was computed according to the Roman method (Jovino, 123 sqq., 139 sqq.).

Again, some disciples thought that Judas left the supper table because Jesus had said to him: "Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor" (John 13:29). If the Supper had been held on 13 Nisan this belief of thedisciples can hardly be understood, since Judas might have made his purchases and distributed his alms on 14 Nisan; there would have been no need for his rushing into the city in the middle of the night. On the day of Christ's Crucifixion the Jews "went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch" (John 18:28). The pasch which the Jews wished to eat could not have been the paschal lamb, which was eaten on 14 Nisan, for the pollution contracted by entering the hall would have ceased at sundown, so that it would not have prevented them from sharing in the paschal supper. The pasch which the Jews had in view must have been thesacrificial offerings (Chagighah), which were called also pasch and were eaten on 15 Nisan. Hence this passage places the death of Jesus Christ on the fifteenth day of Nisan.

Again, Jesus is said to have suffered and died on the "parasceve of the pasch", or simply on the "parasceve" (John 19:14, 31); as "parasceve" meant Friday, the expression "parasceve" denotes Friday on which the pasch happened to fall, not the before the pasch. Finally, the day following the parasceve on which Jesus died is called "a great sabbath day" (John 19:31), either to denote its occurrence in the paschal week or to distinguish it from the preceding pasch, or day of minor rest.

Relative chronology

No student of the life of Jesus will question the chronological order of its principal divisions: infancy, hidden life, public life, passion, glory. But the order of events in the single divisions is not always clear beyond dispute.

The infancy of Jesus

The history of the infancy, for instance, is recorded only in the First Gospel and in the Third. Each Evangelist contents himself with five pictures:

• St. Matthew describes the birth of Jesus, the adoration of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the return to Nazareth.
• St. Luke gives a sketch of the birth, of the adoration of the shepherds, of the circumcision, of the purification of the Virgin, and of the return to Nazareth.

The two Evangelists agree in the first and the last of these two series of incidents (moreover, all scholars place the birth, adoration of the shepherds, and the circumcision before the Magi), but how are we to arrange the intervening three events related by St. Matthew with the order of St. Luke? We indicate a few of the many ways in which the chronological sequence of these facts has been arranged.

First possibility

This order implies that either the purification was delayed beyond the fortieth day, which seems to contradict Luke 2:22 sqq., or thatJesus was born shortly before Herod's death. so that the Holy Family could return from Egypt within forty days after the birth of Jesus.Tradition does not seem to favour this speedy return.

Second possibility

According to this order the Magi either arrived a few days before the purification or they came on 6 January; but in neither case can we understand why the Holy Family should have offered the sacrifice of the poor, after receiving the offerings of the Magi. Moreover, the first Evangelist intimates that the angel appeared to St. Joseph soon after the departure of the Magi, and it is not at all probable that Herodshould have waited long before inquiring concerning the whereabouts of the new born king. The difficulties are not overcome by placing the adoration of the Magi on the day before the purification; it would be more unlikely in that case that the Holy Family should offer thesacrifice of the poor.

Third possibility

As Luke 2:39 appears to exclude the possibility of placing the adoration of the Magi between the presentation and return to Nazareth, there are interpreters who have located the advent of the wise men, the flight to Egypt, the slaughter of the Innocents, and the return from Egypt after the events as told in St. Luke. They agree in the opinion that the Holy Family returned to Nazareth after the purification, and then left Nazareth in order to make their home in Bethlehem. Eusebius, Epiphanius, and some other ancient writers are willing to place the adoration of the Magi about two years after Christ's birth; Paperbroch and his followers allow about a year and thirteen days between the birth and the advent of the Magi; while Patrizi agrees with those who fix the advent of the Magi at about two weeks after the purification. The text of Matthew 2:1-2 hardly permits an interval of more than a year between the purification and the coming of thewise men; Patrizi's opinion appears to satisfy all the data furnished by the gospels, while it does not contradict the particulars added bytradition.

The hidden life of Jesus

It was in the seclusion of Nazareth that Jesus spent the greatest part of His earthly life. The inspired records are very reticent about this period: Luke 2:40-52; Mark 6:3; John 6:42; 7:15, are about the only passages which refer to the hidden life.

Some of them give us a general view of Christ's life: "The child grew, and grew in strength and wisdom; and the grace of God was in him" is the brief summary of the years following the return of the Holy Family after the ceremonial purification in the Temple. "Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men", and He "was subject to them" form the inspired outline of Christ's life in Nazareth after He had attained the age of twelve.

"When he was twelve years old" Jesus accompanied His parents to Jerusalem, 'according to the custom of the feast'; When they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not." After three days, they found him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions." It was on this occasion that Jesus spoke the only words that have come down from the period of His hidden life: "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know, that I must be about my Father's business [or, "in myFather's house"]?"

The Jews tell us that Jesus had not passed through the training of the Rabbinic schools: "How doth this man know letters, having never learned?". The same question is asked by the people of Nazareth, who add, "Is not this the carpenter?" St. Justin is authority for the statement that Jesus specially made "ploughs and yokes' (Contra Tryph., 88). Though it is not certain that at the time of Jesuselementary schools existed in the Jewish villages, it may be inferred from the Gospels that Jesus knew how to read (Luke 4:16) and write (John 8:6). At an early age He must have learned the so called Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), and the Hallel, or Psalms 113-118 (Hebrew); He must have been familiar with the other parts of the Scriptures too, especially the Psalms and the Prophetic Books, as He constantly refers to them in His public life. It is also asserted that Palestine at the time of Jesus Christ was practically bilingual, so that Christ must have spoken Aramaic and Greek; the indications that He was acquainted with Hebrew and Latin are rather slight. The public teaching ofJesus shows that He was a close observer of the sights and sounds of nature, and of the habits of all classes of men. For these are the usual sources of His illustrations.

To conclude, the hidden life of Jesus extending through thirty years is far different from what one should have expected in the case of aPerson Who is adored by His followers as their God and revered as their Saviour; this is an indirect proof for the credibility of the Gospelstory.

The public life of Jesus: its duration

The chronology of the public life offers a number of problems to the interpreter; we shall touch upon only two, the duration of the public life, and the successive journeys it contains.

There are two extreme views as to the length of the ministry of Jesus: St. Irenæus (Against Heresies II.22.3-6) appears to suggest a period of fifteen years; the prophetic phrases, "the year of recompenses", "the year of my redemption" (Isaiah 34:8; 63:4), appear to have induced Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the public life. This latter opinion has found advocates among certain recent students: von Soden, for instance, defends it in Cheyne's "Encyclopaedia Biblica". But the text of the Gospels demands a more extensive duration. St. John's Gospel distinctly mentions three distinct paschs in the history of Christ's ministry (2:13; 6:4; 11:55). The first of the three occurs shortly after the baptism of Jesus, the last coincides with His Passion, so that at least two years must have intervened between the two events to give us the necessary room for the passover mentioned in 6:4. Westcott and Hort omit the expression "the pasch" in 6:4 to compress the ministry of Jesus within the space of one year; but all the manuscripts, the versions, and nearly all the Fathers testify for the reading "En de eggysto pascha heeorteton Ioudaion": "Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand". Thus far then everything tends to favour the view of those writers and more recent commentators who extend the period of Christ's ministry a little over two years.

But a comparison of St. John's Gospel with the Synoptic Evangelists seems to introduce another pasch, indicated in the Fourth Gospel, into Christ's public life. John 4:45, relates the return of Jesus into Galilee after the first pasch of His public life in Jerusalem, and the same event is told by Mark 1:14, and Luke 4:14. Again the pasch mentioned in John 6:4 has its parallel in the "green grass" of Mark 6:39, and in the multiplication of loaves as told in Luke 9:12 sqq. But the plucking of ears mentioned in Mark 2:23, and Luke 6:1, implies anotherpaschal season intervening between those expressly mentioned in John 2:13 and 6:4. This shows that the public life of Jesus must have extended over four paschs, so that it must have lasted three years and a few months. Though the Fourth Gospel does not indicate this fourth pasch as clearly as the other three, it is not wholly silent on the question. The "festival day of the Jews" mentioned in John 5:1, has been identified with the Feast of Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of Expiation, the Feast of the New Moon, the Feast of Purim, the Feast of Dedication, by various commentators; others openly confess that they cannot determine to which of the Jewishfeasts this festival day refers. Nearly all difficulties will disappear if the festival day be regarded as the pasch, as both the text (heorte) and John 4:35 seem to demand (cf. Dublin Review, XXIII, 351 sqq.).

The public life of Jesus: his journeys

The journeys made during His public life may be grouped under nine heads: the first six were mainly performed in Galilee and hadCapharnaum for their central point; the last three bring Jesus into Judea without any pronounced central point. We cannot enter into the disputed questions connected with the single incidents of the various groups.

First journey

December, A.U.C. 778 - Spring, 779. (Cf. John 1:2; Matthew 3:4; Mark 1; Luke 3:4)

Jesus abandons His hidden life in Nazareth, and goes to Bethania across the Jordan, where He is baptized by John and receives theBaptist's first testimony to His Divine mission. He then withdraws into the desert of Judea, where He fasts for forty days and is temptedby the devil. After this He dwells in the neighbourhood of the Baptist's ministry, and receives the latter's second and third testimony; here too He wins His first disciples, with whom He journeys to the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, where He performs His first miracle. Finally He transfers His residence, so far as there can be question of a residence in His public life, to Capharnaum, one of the principal thoroughfares of commerce and travel in Galilee.

Second journey

Passover, A.U.C. 779 - about Pentecost, 780. (Cf. John 2-5; Mark 1-3; Luke 4-7; Matthew 4-9)

Jesus goes from Capharnaum to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover; here he expels the buyers and sellers from the Temple, and is questioned by the Jewish authorities. Many believed in Jesus, and Nicodemus came to converse with Him during the night. After the festival days He remained in Judea till about the following December, during which period He received the fourth testimony from John who was baptizing at Ennon (A.V. Aenon). When the Baptist had been imprisoned in Machaerus, Jesus returned to Galilee by way of Samariawhere He met the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well near Sichar; He delayed two days in this place, and many believed in Him.

Soon after His return into Galilee we find Jesus again in Cana, where He heard the prayer who pleaded for the recovery of his dying son inCapharnaum. The rejection of Jesus by the people of Nazareth, whether at this time as, St. Luke intimates, or at a later period, as St. Mark seems to demand, or again both now and about eight months later, is an exegetical problem we cannot solve here. At any rate, shortly afterwards Jesus is mostly actively engaged in Capharnaum in teaching and healing the sick, restoring among others Peter'smother-in-law and a demoniac. On this occasion He called Peter and Andrew, James and John. Then followed a missionary tour throughGalilee during which Jesus cured a leper; soon he again taught in Capharnaum, and was surrounded by such a multitude that a man sick of the palsy had to be let down through the roof in order to reach the Sacred Presence. After calling Matthew to the Apostleship, He went to Jerusalem for the second pasch occurring during His public life, it was on this occasion that He healed the man who been sick for thirty-eight years near the pool at Jerusalem. The charge of violating the Sabbath and Christ's answer were the natural effects of themiracle. The same charge is repeated shortly after the pasch; Jesus had returned to Galilee, and the disciples plucked some ripe ears in the corn fields. The question became more acute in the immediate future; Jesus had returned to Capharnaum, and there healed on theSabbath day a man who had a withered hand. The Pharisees now make common cause with the Herodians in order to "destroy him". Jesuswithdraws first to the Sea of Galilee, where He teaches and performs numerous miracles; then retires to the Mountain of Beatitudes, where He prays during the night, chooses His Twelve Apostles in the morning, and preaches the Sermon on the Mount. He is brought back to Capharnaum by the prayers of the centurion who asks and obtains the of his servant.

Third journey

About Pentecost, A.U.C. 780- Autumn, 780. (Cf. Luke 7:8; Mark 3:4; Matthew 4, 8, 9, 12, 13)

Jesus makes another missionary tour through Galilee; He resuscitates the son of the widow at Naim, and shortly afterwards receives the messengers sent by John from his prison in Machaerus. Then follows the scene of the merciful reception of the sinful woman who anoints the feet of the Lord while He rests at table in Magdala or perhaps in Capharnaum; for the rest of His missionary tour Jesus is followed by a band of pious women who minister to the wants of the Apostles. After returning to Capharnaum, Jesus expels the mute devil, is charged by the Pharisees with casting out devils by the prince of devils, and encounters the remonstrances of His kinsmen. Withdrawing to the sea, He preaches what may be called the "Lake Sermon", consisting of seven parables.

Fourth journey

Autumn, A.U.C. 780- about Passover, 781. (Cf. Luke 8:9; Mark 4-6; Matthew 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

After a laborious day of ministry in the city of Capharnaum and on the lake, Jesus with His Apostles crosses the waters. As a great storm overtakes them, the frightened Apostles awaken their sleeping Master, Who commands the winds and the waves. Towards morning they meet in the country of the Gerasens, on the east of the lake, two demoniacs. Jesus expels the evil spirits, but allows them to enter into a herd of swine. The beasts destroy themselves in the waters of the lake, and frightened inhabitants beg Jesus not to remain among them. After returning to Capharnaum he heals the woman who had touched the hem of His garment, resuscitates the daughter of Jairus, and gives sight to two blind men. The second Gospel places here Christ's last visit to and rejection by the people of Nazareth. Then follows the ministry of the Apostles who are sent two by two, while Jesus Himself makes another missionary tour through Galilee. It seems to have been the martyrdom of John the Baptist that occasioned the return of the Apostles and their gathering around the Master in Capharnaum. But, however depressing this event may have been, it did not damp the enthusiasm of the Apostles over their success.

Fifth journey

Spring, A.U.C. 781. (Cf. John 6; Luke 9; Mark 6; and Matthew 14)

Jesus invites the Apostles, tired out from their missionary labours, to rest awhile. They cross the northern part of the Sea of Galilee, but, instead of finding the desired solitude, they are met by multitudes of people who had preceded them by land or by boat, and who were eager for instruction. Jesus taught them throughout the day, and towards evening did not wish to dismiss them hungry. On the other hand, there were only five loaves and two fishes at the disposal of Jesus; after His blessing, these scanty supplies satisfied the hunger of five thousand men, besides women and children, and remnants filled twelve baskets of fragments. Jesus sent the Apostles back to their boats, and escaped from the enthusiastic multitudes, who wished to make Him king, into the mountain where He prayed till far into the night. Meanwhile the Apostles were facing a contrary wind till the fourth watch in the morning, when they saw Jesus walking upon the waters. The Apostles first fear, and then recognize Jesus; Peter walks upon the water as long as his confidence lasts; the storm ceases when Jesus has entered the boat. The next day brings Jesus and His Apostles to Capharnaum, where He speaks to the assembly about the Bread of Life and promises the Holy Eucharist, with the result that some of His followers leave Him, while the faith of His true disciplesis strengthened.

Sixth journey

About May, A.U.C. 781- Sept., 781. (Cf. Luke 9; Mark 7-9; Matthew 14-18; John 7)

It may be owing to the enmity stirred up against Jesus by His Eucharistic discourse in Capharnaum that He began now a more extensive missionary tour than He had made in the preceding years of His life. Passing through the country of Genesar, He expressed His disapproval of the Pharisaic practices of legal purity. Within the boarders of Tyre and Sidon He exorcized the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman. From here Jesus travelled first towards the north, then towards the east, then south-eastward through the northern part of Decapolis, probably along the foot of the Lebanon, till He came to the eastern part of Galilee. While in Decapolis Jesus healed a deaf-mute, employing a ceremonial more elaborate than He had used at any of His previous miracles; in the eastern part of Galilee, probably not far from Dalmanutha and Magedan, He fed four thousand men, besides children and women, with seven loaves and a few little fishes, the remaining fragments filling seven baskets. The multitudes had listened for three days to the teaching of Jesus, previously to the miracle. In spite of the many cures performed by Jesus, during this journey, on the blind, the dumb, the lame, the maimed, and on many others, the Phariseesand Sadducees asked Him for a sign from heaven, tempting Him. He promised them the sign of Jonas the Prophet. After Jesus and theApostles had crossed the lake, He warned them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; then they passed through Bethsaida Juliaswhere Jesus gave sight to a blind man. Next we find Jesus in the confines of Caesarea Philippi, where Peter professes his faith in Christ, the Son of the living God, and in his turn receives from Jesus the promise of the power of the keys. Jesus here predicts His passion, and about a week later is transfigured before Peter, James, and John, probably on the top of Mt.Thabor. On descending from the mountain,Jesus exorcizes the mute devil whom His disciples had not been able to expel. Bending his way towards Capharnaum, Jesus predicts HisPassion for the second time, and in the city pays the tribute-money for Himself and Peter. This occasions the discussion as to the greater in the kingdom of heaven, and the allied discourses. Finally, Jesus refuses His brethren's invitation to go publicly to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem.

Seventh journey

Sept., A.U.C. 781- December, 781. (Cf. Luke 9-13; Mark 10; Matthew 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 24; John 7-10)

Jesus now "steadfastly set His face to go Jerusalem", and as the Samaritans refused Him hospitality, He had to take the east of theJordan. While still in Galilee, He refused the discipleship of several half-hearted candidates, and about the same time He sent other seventy-two, two by two, before His face into every city and place whither He Himself was to come. Probably in the lower part of Peraea, the seventy-two returned with joy, rejoicing in the miraculous power that had been exercised by them. It must have been in the vicinity of Jericho that Jesus answered the lawyer's question, "Who is my neighbour?" by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Next Jesus was received in the hospitable home of Mary and Martha, where He declares Mary to have chosen the better part. From Bethania He went toJerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, where he became involved in discussions with the Jews. The Scribes and Pharisees endeavoured to catch Him in the sentence which they asked Him to pronounce in the case of the woman taken in adultery. When Jesus had avoided this snare, He continued His discussions with the hostile Jews. Their enmity was intensified because Jesus restored sight to a blind man on the Sabbath day. Jesus appears to have His stay in Jerusalem with the beautiful discourse on the Good Shepherd. A little later He teaches His Apostles the Our Father, probably somewhere on Mt. Olivet. On a subsequent missionary tour through Judea and Peraea He defends Himself against the charges of Pharisees, and reproves their hypocrisy. On the same journey Jesus warned against hypocrisy,covetousness, worldly care; He exhorted to watchfulness, patience under contradictions, and to penance. About this time, too, He healed the woman who had the spirit of infirmity.

Eighth journey

December, A.U.C. 781-February, 782. (Cf. Luke 13-17; John 10:11)

The Feast of Dedication brought Jesus again to Jerusalem, and occasioned another discussion with the Jews. This is followed by another missionary tour through Peraea, during which Jesus explained a number of important points of doctrine: the number of the elect, the choice of one's place at table, the guests to be invited, the parable of the great supper, resoluteness in the service of God, the parablesof the hundred sheep, the lost groat, and the prodigal son, of the unjust steward, of Dives and Lazarus, of the unmerciful servant, besides the duty of fraternal correction, and the efficacy of faith. During this period, too, the Pharisees attempted to frighten Jesus with the menance of Herod's persecution; on his part, Jesus healed a man who had dropsy, on a Sabbath day, while at table in the house of a certain prince of the Pharisees. Finally Mary and Martha send messengers to Jesus, asking Him to come and cure their brother Lazarus;Jesus went after two days, and resuscitated His friend who had been several days in the grave. The Jews are exasperated over thismiracle, and they decree Jesus must die for the people. Hence He withdrew "into a country near the desert, unto a city that is called Ephrem".

Ninth journey

February, A.U.C. 782- Passover, 782. (Cf. Luke 17-22; Mark 10, 14; Matthew 19-26; John 11, 12.)

This last journey took Jesus from Ephrem northward through Samaria, then eastward along the border of Galilee into Peraea, then southward through Peraea, westward across the Jordan, through Jericho, Bethania on Mt. Olivet, Bethphage, and finally to Jerusalem. While in the most northern part of the journey, He cured ten lepers; a little later, He answered the questions raised by the Phariseesconcerning the kingdom of God. Then He urged the need of incessant prayer by proposing the parable of the unjust judge; here too belong the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, the discourse on marriage, on the attitude of the Church towards the children, on the right use of riches as illustrated by the story of the rich young ruler, and the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. After beginning His route towards Jerusalem, He predicted His Passion for the third time; James and John betray their ambition, but they are taught the truestandard of greatness in the Church. At Jericho Jesus heals two blind men, and receives the repentance of Zacheus the publican; here He proposed also the parable of the pounds entrusted to the servants by the master.

Six days before the pasch we find Jesus at Bethania on Mt. Olivet, as the guest of Simon the leper; Mary anoints His feet, and thedisciples at the instigation of Judas are indignant at this seeming waste of ointment. A great multitude assembles at Bethania, not to seeJesus only but also Lazarus; hence the chief priests think of killing Lazarus too. On the following day Jesus solemnly entered Jerusalem and was received by the Hosanna cries of all classes of people. In the afternoon He met a delegation of Gentiles in the court of the Temple. On Monday Jesus curses the barren fig tree, and during the morning He drives the buyers and sellers from the Temple. On Tuesday the wonder of the disciples at the sudden withering of the fig tree provokes their Master's instruction on the efficacy of faith. Jesus answers the enemies' questions as to His authority; then He proposes the parable of the two sons, of the wicked husbandmen, and of the marriagefeast. Next follows a triple snare: the politicians ask whether it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar; the scoffers inquire whose wife awoman, who has had several husbands, will be after resurrection; the Jewish theologians propose the question: Which is the first commandment, the great commandment of the law? Then Jesus proposes His last question to the Jews: "What think you of Christ? whose son is he?" This is followed by the eightfold woe against the Scribes and Pharisees, and by the denunciation of Jerusalem. The last words of Christ in the Temple were expressions of praise for the poor widow who had made an offering of two mites in spite of her poverty. Jesusended this day by uttering the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, His second coming, and the future judgement; these predictions are interrupted by the parable of the ten virgins and the talents. On Wednesday Jesus again predicted His Passion; probably it was on the same day that Judas made his agreement with the Jews to betray Jesus.

The Passion of Jesus: its preparation

The history of Christ's Passion comprises three parts: the preparation for the Passion, the trial of Jesus, and His death.

Jesus prepares His disciples for the Passion, He prepares Himself for the ordeal and His enemies prepare themselves for the destruction ofJesus.

Preparation of the apostles

Jesus prepares His Apostles for the Passion by the eating of the paschal lamb, the institution of the Holy Eucharist, the concomitantceremonies, and His lengthy discourses held during and after the Last Supper. Special mention should be made of the prediction of thePassion, and of the betrayal one of the Apostles and the denial by another. Peter, James, and John are prepared in a more particular manner by witnessing the sorrow of Jesus on Mt. Olivet.

Preparation of Jesus

Jesus must have found an indirect preparation in all He did and said to strengthen His Apostles. But the preparation that was peculiarly His own consisted in His prayer in the grotto of His Agony where the angel came to strengthen Him. The sleep of His favoured Apostles during the hours of His bitter struggle must have prepared Him too for the complete abandonment He was soon to experience.

Preparation of the enemies

Judas leaves the Master during the Last Supper. The chief priests and Pharisees hastily collect a detachment of the Roman cohort stationed in the castle of Antonia, of the Jewish temple-watch, and of the officials of the Temple. To these are added a number of the servants and dependents of the high-priest, and a miscellaneous multitude of fanatics with lanterns and torches, with swords and clubs, who were to follow the leadership of Judas. They took Christ, bound Him, and led Him to the high-priest's house.

The Passion of Jesus: the trial

Jesus was tried first before an ecclesiastical and then before a civil tribunal.

Before ecclesiastical court

The ecclesiastical trial includes Christ's appearance before Annas, before Caiphas, and again before Caiphas, who appears to have acted in each case as head of the Sanhedrin. The Jewish court found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and condemned Him to death, though its proceedings were illegal from more than one point of view. During the trial took place Peter's triple denial of Jesus; Jesus is insulted and mocked, especially between the second and third session; and after His final condemnation Judas despaired and met his tragic death.

Before the civil court

The civil trial, too, comprised three sessions, the first before Pilate, the second before Herod, the third again before Pilate.

Jesus is not charged with blasphemy before the court of Pilate, but with stirring up the people, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ the king. Pilate ignores the first two charges; the third he finds harmless when he sees that Jesus does not claim royalty in the Roman sense of the word.

But in order not to incur the odium of the Jewish leaders, the Roman governor sends his prisoner to Herod. As Jesus did not humour the curiosity of Herod, He was mocked and set at naught by the Tetrarch of Galilee and his court, and sent back to Pilate.

The Roman procurator declares the prisoner innocent for the second time, but, instead of setting Him free, gives the people the alternative to choose either Jesus or Barabbas for their paschal freedman. Pilate pronounced Jesus innocent for the third time with the more solemn ceremony of washing his hands; he had recourse to a third scheme of ridding himself of the burden of pronouncing an unjustsentence against his prisoner. He had the prisoner scourged, thus annihilating, as far as human means could do so, any hope that Jesuscould ever attain to the royal dignity. But even this device miscarried, and Pilate allowed his political ambition to prevail over his sense of evident justice; he condemned Jesus to be crucified.

The Passion of Jesus: his death

Jesus carried His Cross to the place of execution. Simon of Cyrene is forced to assist Him in bearing the heavy burden. On the way Jesusaddresses his last words to the weeping women who sympathized with His suffering. He is nailed to the Cross, his garments are divided, and an inscription is placed over His head. While His enemies mock Him, He pronounces the well-known "Seven Words". Of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, one was converted, and the other died impenitent. The sun was darkened, and Jesus surrendered His soul into the hands of His Father. The veil of the Temple was rent into two, the earth quaked, the rocks were riven, and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose and appeared to many. The Roman centurion testified that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. The Heart of Jesus was pierced so as to make sure of His death. The Sacred Body was taken from the Cross by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and wasburied in the new sepulchre of Joseph, and the Sabbath drew near.

The glory of Jesus

After the burial of Jesus, the holy women returned and prepared spices and ointments. The next day, the chief priests and Pharisees made the sepulchre secure with guards, sealing the stone. When the Sabbath was passed, the holy women brought sweet spices that they might anoint Jesus. But Jesus rose early the first day of the week, and there was a great earthquake, and an angel descended fromheaven, and rolled back the stone. The guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men. On arriving at the sepulchre the holywomen found the grave empty; Mary Magdalen ran to tell the Apostles Peter and John, while the other women were told by an angel that the Lord had arisen from the dead. Peter and John hasten to the sepulchre, and find everything as Magdalen has reported. Magdalen too returns, and, while weeping at the sepulchre, is approached by the arisen Saviour Who appears to her and speaks with her. On the same day Jesus appeared to the other holy women, to Peter, to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and to all the Apostles exceptingThomas. A week later He appeared to all the Apostles, Thomas included; later still He appeared in Galilee near the Lake of Genesareth to seven disciples, on a mountain in Galilee to a multitude of disciples, to James, and finally to His disciples on the Mount Olivet whence Heascended into heaven. But these apparitions do not exhaust the record of the Gospels, according to which Jesus showed Himself alive after His Passion by many proofs, for forty days appearing to the disciples and speaking of the kingdom of God.

A post-modern theological model for understanding the

religious concept of ultimate reality and religious diversity  

Abstract:  There has been a fundamental shift in theological models for understanding 

ultimate reality/God and religious diversity in the post-modern age. This shift is from modernism’s monolithic view or model of ultimate reality to post-modernism’s  multilithic view or model of ultimate reality. This paradigm shift has profound  implications for the way in which religious diversity is to be understood in the postmodern era. As a result, the language utilised by various theological frameworks  particular to discrete religions articulate what ultimate reality is. This language is usually  refracted through  particular socio-cultural and religious contexts, and so may need to be reconsidered in a  post-modern context. 

Introduction  Theology as an academic discipline has undergone major changes in response 

to a shift from a modern to a post modern view of ultimate reality. Flood  (1999) identifies a change in how ‘theology’ is understood within institutions  of higher education today. Theology no longer strictly refers to an “insider” discourse  that reflects a largely confessional understanding of a particular religion’s doctrinal,  ethical and ritual position regarding religious truth. Rather, it refers to “theological  universalism” or that post-modern propensity to understand religious plurality without  T2  giving pre-eminence to a particular group(s) articulation of religious truth (Flood, 1999;  Hick, 1989).      Hick (1989, pp.252-253) defines theological universalism as follows: religions are  different ways of responding to ultimate reality or “the Real”. Therefore, the Moslem  “Allah”, the Christian “God”, the Taoist “Tao” and the Hindu “Brahmin” are all terms for  the same ultimate reality towards which various world religions believe they are moving,  whether theistic or non-theistic. Flood (1999, p.55) elaborates on this notion by  describing ultimate reality or the “Real” as that which appears within “...the various  forms of human interpretative and linguistic  systems and [that] it is only possible to  respond to the Real within the different cultural ways of being human”.   It is in this sense that theology is to be understood in the post-modern context. As a  result, it is important to understand that a key theological shift has occurred. This shift is  from modernism’s monolithic view or model  of ultimate reality to post-modernism’s  multilithic view or model of ultimate reality. This paradigm shift has profound  implications for the way in which religious diversity is understood in the post-modern  era. As a result, the way in which various theological frameworks articulate what ultimate  reality is, via the filters of particular socio-cultural and religious contexts, may need to be  reconsidered.   A review of the literature   Paradigmatic shifts in understanding ultimate reality 3  Phenomenology has been a significant paradigm for studying religion in the modern era  (Smart, 1968; Flood, 1999). For the purposes of this paper phenomenology will be  focussed on as a clear example of a methodology that expresses the basic characteristics  of a modernist approach to the study of religion. This is because phenomenology attempts  to rationalise religious diversity via the universalising concept of divine essence or  wesen. This concept acknowledges on the one hand religious diversity while identifying a  common thread running through each.  Phenomenological methodology has viewed religion as a social and cultural  phenomenon., identifying that while religion manifests itself concretely in the world as  diverse, there is present within each world religion an essence (wesen) that is common to  each (Smart, 1968). Therefore, while the socio-cultural manifestation of religions may  differ across contexts the essence of these same religions does not. Such thinking is  reminiscent of Aristotelian metaphysics and the distinction between substance (the  essence of a thing) and its accidents (the outward characteristics of a thing that gives it  material shape and definition) (Aquinas, trans. 1947; Barnes, 1982). This distinction  between the essence of religion and its socio-cultural and historical manifestation was  later pursued by a number of continental philosophers including van der Leeuw (1938),  Otto (1958) and Husserl (1983).   From Husserl to Habermas  Husserl, argued that in order to truly come to know the essence of something there must  be a suspension of judgement (epoche) and a continuing openness to the object or 4  phenomenon under investigation. This is indicative of the dominant methodology of his  day, which was empirical science.  Habermas (1985) building on the insights of Husserl  elaborated on the notion of the epistemic distance between a phenomenon and the  observer. He argued that the critical knowing of the essence of phenomena comes  through a lengthy process of observation and self-reflection (Habermas, 1985; Craig,  2008). Cultural conditioning and presuppositions regarding particular phenomena can  then be identified by the observer prior to final conclusions being drawn (Lovat, 2001).  The corollary is that final conclusions would arguably be free of prejudice and bias.   Barnes (2001) postulates that phenomenology when applied to a study of religion goes  further than simply acknowledging religious difference. Barnes (2001, p.572) argues that  phenomenology helps to reconcile differences by attempting to theologically reconcile  the “great religions”. Phenomenology achieves this by describing each religion as  manifestations of the same essential spirit or wesen, though the outward characteristics of  doctrine, ritual and ethics particular to various religions may differ. Essentially, this type of  approach could be deemed a cultural lens’ view of religion whereby images of the divine are  understood to be the result of perceiving the same ultimate reality through various cultural lenses  that are varying versions of belief in the same monolithic divine entity (Barnes, 2001; Hick, 1989,  p.369).   Hebblethwaite (1997, pp.138, 146) supports this notion when stating that various  religion’s experience the same transcendent, ultimate reality “albeit under different  guises” due to historical and cultural context. However, McTernan (2002) takes this idea  a step further and explains that images of ultimate reality are constructed within the 5  boundaries of historicism established by culture and experience and that as a consequence  there is no fixed foundational or normative location from which to develop truth claims  about God (cf. Hartshorne, 2001; Whitehead, 1978). Consequently, McTernan (2002)  rejects a cultural lens view of religious  plurality and proposes a radically different  approach. McTernan’s approach signals a paradigmatic departure from classicism and  modernism, which presupposes a monolithic view of ultimate reality to post-modernism  and its postulation of a multilithic view of ultimate reality.   A multilithic view of ultimate reality  It can be argued that the multilithic approach espoused by McTernan (2002) has emerged  out of a changed social and thought world whereby diversity has been acknowledged but  without the compulsion to explain such diversity away with a universalising theory such  as phenomenology. This has arguably been to some extent the practice of modernism,  (Boucher, 2000; Jones, 2003). Furthermore, it can be argued that approaches to  understanding religious diversity based on phenomenology have often been employed to  explain diversity away by identifying a universal essence or  wesen common to all  religion types.   The post-enlightenment preoccupation with reason as the instrument for arriving at  scientific certainty when confronted with a diversity of responses to the human question  of origins, for example, has shown itself to be wanting in answers (Hall, 2003, p.3).  Reason itself is now seen as a particular historical form, as parochial in its own way as  the ancient explanations of the universe in terms of gods and demi-gods (Jones, 2003).  However, phenomenological methods have not always registered this shift in thinking 6  and have had a propensity to endorse a modernist discourse of reason rather than  critically evaluate such a discourse. Therefore, it is important that theological foundations  underpinning any conceptual framework of ultimate reality and religious diversity be  firmly set in the ground of post-modernism. This will ensure that meaning making occurs  more naturally and fluidly within the changed socio-cultural and political context of the  post-modern age.   A post-modern model for understanding ultimate reality and religious diversity  The paradigm shift from a monolithic view  or model of ultimate reality to postmodernism’s multilithic view or model of ultimate reality reflects a historical shift from  the dominant metaphor of the eighteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries to a more  contemporary metaphor of the late twentieth and twenty first century. This shift has been  from the metaphor of the machine to the organic model inherent within post-modernism  (Hartwell, 1996). The former identified the universe and all within it as a closed system  that followed a clear set of rules and ultimately was predictable. Hence, ultimate reality  or God was understood to be a closed system, immutable and unchanging (monolithic  model). However, the latter identifies ultimate reality as an open system that changes,  adapts and even evolves according to varying socio-cultural and historical contexts  (multilithic model). Ultimate reality like any living entity then is mutable and this has  profound implications for the way in which we comprehend religious diversity.   According to Towne (2001), the post-modern religious term, multilithic falls between the  idea of the existence of multiple gods (polytheism) and a cultural lens view of plural gods 7  as variations of one God (monotheism). This view does not propose multiple divine  entities but rather emphasises and radicalises the incommensurability of different sociocultural and historical constructions of ultimate reality in order to retain their  distinctiveness. It needs to be noted, however, that Towne’s explanation of the term  multilithic reflects a privileging of the beliefs of Semitic religious traditions over  Mystical religious traditions thereby silencing polytheistic and non-theistic beliefs  surrounding ultimate reality.   This is evident in the lack of references to polytheism/non-theism and the emphasis upon  monotheism in examples given (Towne, 2001). Bearing this in mind, Towne (2001) is  suggesting that individuals and communities in different cultural settings and historical  locations can be understood as living in intimate relationships with ultimate reality that  are unique and qualitatively different. The most important word in this explanation is  “qualitative”, which denotes a significant shift in religious understanding in comparison  to more traditional understandings of ultimate reality as espoused by phenomenological  models.  Qualitative difference within Religion   Drawing upon the insights of McTernan (2002) and Towne (2001) in analysing several of  the mainline world religions, it could be argued that each discrete religion is simply a  concrete manifestation of a unique relationship with ultimate reality. It is a relationship  whereby the ontological character, the “quality” or essence of this reality, is understood  to be mutable. In other words not only do  the socio-cultural expressions of ultimate 8  reality reflected in the institutional elements of religion change but the very nature of  ultimate reality, believed to be at the heart of these socio-cultural expressions, also  changes.   That is “God’s intimacy with [all] humanity changes God” and not only the human  community (McTernan, 2002, p.2). This view postulates that ultimate reality possesses  ontology (wesen) that is shaped and changed while in relationship with a particular  religious community and culture at a particular time. In other words, the way in which  one religious community experiences ultimate reality is unique not only because of sociocultural and historical differences (cultural lens/monolithic view) but because of  differences in the very nature of encounter with ultimate reality itself (multilithic view).   Consequently, because religion often reflects the dominant culture in which it is rooted,  this God/Ultimate reality who is changed and changes those with whom s/he is in  relationship makes God/Ultimate reality radically transgressive of dominant culture  (McTernan, 2002, p.2). As a result, dominant culture often resists those within it who  reflect this transgressive God. Hence, mainstream religion can tend to privilege particular  elements that appear immutable, such as male priesthood in the Roman Catholic  Christian tradition and silence those groups  who reflect this transgressive God – the  feminist movement in the Roman Catholic tradition for example. This thinking has  serious implications for religious diversity and how we understand it and approach it  within the context of a study of religon.  9  The multilithic model of ultimate reality and the study of religion  Utilising the multilithic model of ultimate reality in a study of religion could potentially  assist students to better understand the nature of religious plurality in a post-modern  context. It must be kept in mind, however, that terms such as monolithic and multilithic  always function as a model or extended metaphor for the God/Ultimate reality-World  relationship. These models per se are limited and inadequate ways for imagining what is  not observable empirically. They sit somewhere between literal pictures and useful  fictions of the thing they are imagining.  Consequently, the term multilithic makes a  tentative ontological claim regarding the God/Ultimate reality-world relationship that  there is a reality something like that postulated in the model (Bracken, 2002). What it  does not intend to say is that the model is tantamount to ultimate reality.   If studies in religion employed the multilithic model as an assumption underpinning an  analysis of religion it could then present world religions as doctrinal articulations of a  group or community’s unique relationship with ultimate reality. Differences in doctrine  and ritual would be understood to reflect not only socio-cultural differences (monolithic  view) but also actual differences in the essence of the divine/human encounter  (multilithic view). Ultimate reality would be understood to be encountered variously and  not only as a result of differences in time, place and culture. This is because ultimate  reality is comprehended to be not only quantitatively different (socio-cultural difference)  in each encounter but also qualitatively different (different in essence) in each encounter.   Evaluating the multilithic model 10  Disadvantages of the multilithic model  A criticism that could be levelled at a multilithic view of ultimate reality is that this view  risks being inclusivist and so simply another permutation of a universalising theory for  explaining away diversity (Boucher, 2000; Flood, 1999; Hobson & Edwards, 1999). Such  universalising theories are typical of modernism and may signal an intellectual  regression. Religious difference in the inclusivist model of teaching religion is accounted  for by claiming that various religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, are simply partial  versions of a particular religion that is deemed to be most correct in terms of religious  truth, such as Christianity.   In response to such a criticism the following could be argued: A multilithic approach  accommodates difference without attempting to explain it away, which is the tendency of  phenomenological methods. Secondly, a multilithic approach does not privilege one  cultural context over another but views each context as unique and distinct but equal in  value. This is contrary to phenomenological methodologies, which tacitly account for  religious difference by stating that while doctrines and rituals may differ across religions,  the essence (wesen) of what is being experienced within each religion is the same (Smart,  1968). Therefore, it appeals to universalism  by stating that all religions regardless of  socio-cultural and historical context possess at their core the same essential substance that  makes them ‘religion’.   This thinking is arguably a product of a modernist world-view as it reflects a monolithic  view of ultimate reality – that religions regardless of socio-cultural and historical context 11  have at their core the same divine  wesen. By employing Smart’s phenomenological  approach, the essence of religion is universalised and does not allow for a multiplicity of  different wesen co-existing. Nevertheless, phenomenology as a tool for teaching religion  has been effective in that it attempts to suspend the need for value judgements hence  avoiding or at least delaying such judgements (Barnes, 2001; Lovat, 2001).   This characteristic has been most helpful in the study of  religion as it has assisted  institutions of learning to provide a rationale for religious tolerance and to break down  barriers of religious exclusivism. However, by relocating the question of religious  plurality within the post-modern religious framework of Whitehead (1978), Hartshorne  (2001), Towne (2001) and McTernan (2002) and away from the phenomenological  approach of Smart (typical of modernity) the suspension of value judgements is not  necessarily compromised. This is because each socio-cultural and historical manifestation  of religion is deemed to be of equal value and significance regardless of differences.   Advantages of the multilithic model  Each socio-cultural and historical manifestation of religion is understood to be equally  entitled to lay claim to particular religious truths when a multilithic model is employed  for understanding religious plurality. This view may better promote religious tolerance  than phenomenological methodologies as it maintains that “other” religious beliefs that  conflict with those that are dominant within a particular cultural context are not simply  variations on the traditional view of ultimate reality within that context. Rather, ultimate  reality is real in particular and individualised ways that reject “sameness”. Consequently, 12  the “otherness” of doctrines associated with a particular religious group that may lie  outside of dominant culture are deemed to be no less true or meaningful than those within  the dominant culture when a multilithic view is employed (McTernan, 2002, p.3).   Conclusion  This paper has clearly identified a fundamental shift in the theological landscape resulting  in a profound change in our understanding of ultimate reality/God and religious diversity.  This shift is from modernism’s monolithic view or model of ultimate reality to postmodernism’s multilithic view or model of ultimate reality. This paradigm shift has  profound implications for the way in which religious diversity is to be understood in the  post-modern era. As a result, the way in which various theological frameworks attempt to  express what ultimate reality is, via the filters of particular socio-cultural and religious  context, arguably need to be reconsidered.   Tolle (2003, p.17) suggests that every “dogma crumbles sooner or later, because reality  will eventually disclose its falseness”. Perhaps this insight can be applied partially to our  models for understanding Ultimate reality and religious diversity. Particular models for  understanding the nature of ultimate reality and religious diversity crumble sooner or  later, because reality will disclose their inherent limitations to make meaning for people  in a changed socio-cultural and historical context. The changed socio-cultural, religious  and political landscape of the post-modern age is disclosing the limitations of a model  that was pertinent in its age but which may now be struggling to create meaning for the  post-modern mindset. Consequently, a multilithic model may better assist the child of the 13  post-modern age to grapple with those ubiquitous questions regarding Ultimate  reality/God. This model may also assist in dealing with the implications of those  questions for our own collective self understanding in the face of socio-cultural and  religious diversity.   Finally, it is important to point out that while phenomenological models for  understanding the nature of ultimate reality and religious diversity, due to their origin  within modernism, have arguably been struggling to make meaning in a post-modern  context is not to say that post-modern models, such as the one proposed in this paper, are  superior to modern methodologies. Rather, by suggesting a change in theological model  for understanding the nature of ultimate reality and religious diversity is simply to  acknowledge that the construction of meaning is now occurring within a different social  and cultural context and that other methodological frameworks for meaning-making  could be more effective. This is not to dismiss the possible value of enriching current  phenomenological approaches in order to render them more meaningful tools for  studying religion in a post-modern context (Craig, 2008).  Technology could provide  some helpful options as to how this may be done. 

To Him be glory for ever and ever!