I argued for that when arguing for a 30 AD Crucifixion. Other have btw argued for a 30 AD Crucifixion while keeping a 3-3.5 year ministry, but there are other chronological reasons I can't accept that.
Problem is others out there are arguing for an only 1 year ministry but doing so in a completely different way, that ignores the not so chronological nature of John and still thinks the John 2 Passover was a separate Passover from the Passion which is absurd as I argued before.
But worse then that, they argue that John 6 has a scribal error thus casting doubt on the preservation of God's Word. Which is why I fear this is a Satanic ploy to discredit arguing for a 1 year ministry at all.
The verse in John 6 mentioning Passover is apparently missing from some manuscripts, but I'll bet as usual these are chiefly the Alexandrian Manuscripts. I base my view of Scripture on the Received Text.
They say this can't actually be Passover because Jesus would have to be in Jerusalem if it's Passover. The wording in John 6:4 doesn't say it is on Passover exactly, it says the Passover is nigh. For the Passion week Jesus entered Jerusalem on the preceding Sunday, which I believe fell on the 10th of Nisan, the day the Passover Lamb is presented.
Passover could be nigh certainly if it's Nisan already, but in time Jewish tradition came to think of the Passover Season as beginning in a sense as soon as Purim ended around the 15-17th of Adar. Not unlike how in modern America the Christmas season begins as soon as Thanksgiving ends. Also the Samaritans had developed a tradition of having a build up to Passover that begins 10-11 weeks in advance, recounting the entire Exodus narrative from when Moses first came before Pharaoh.
For all these reasons I have decided, though I hadn't decided this firmly yet when I first made the 30 AD post, that I believe the Passover of John 6 is also the same Passover as the Crucifixion. But I do think for reasons explained elsewhere Jesus Baptism was possibly near the Passover of the previous year.
I believe the break between chapter 6 and 7 should be moved up a verse, that 7:2 starts the Tabernacles narrative and 7:1 ends the John 6 narrative. So I feel justified in speculating that John 7 took place 5 or 6 months before John 6.
They say the Synoptic accounts of the same Miracle that is the centerpiece of John 6 clearly place it at the end of Summer, I disagree, I don't see that. The basis seems to be thinking the Synoptics account refers to the Feast approaching after this account correlates to John 7 depicting Tabernacles next. As I feel the cleansing of The Temple issue proves, John isn't always chronological, even if a face value reading of his transitions seem that way.
The Synoptics unlike John are only concerned with that one Passover where he was Crucified, no other Feasts. So any reference to a Feast or Festival approaching in the Synoptics I'm certain means that Passover not any other.
I'll go ahead and repeat what I said before on the cleansing.
The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.
So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the Synoptic Gospels does not seem to allow more then a Year and a few months for Jesus' Ministry. The thing people overlook is that John's Gospel is the most Mystical of the Gospels, and because of that it's not always purely Chronological, sometimes events are described next to each other for symbolic reasons, not because they actually happened side by side.
John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it's presented as his first public miracle. The second story involves The Temple. I believe they're told side by side because together they make John 2 a Beth chapter. Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it also means house. So John 2 deals with both The House as in the Family and The House as in the House of God. Both also refer to a three day period of time.
What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives the Scribes and the Pharisees and the Priesthood to want Jesus dead, if he'd done the same thing 2 or 3 years before that wouldn't make much sense. It's also interesting that the Synoptic account alludes to what only John records Jesus saying here, (About destroying this Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days) in the form of false witnesses misrepresenting it. But my point here is it's presented as something he recently said.
So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less. And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself."Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovation of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D. Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.
Luke 4:19 refers to the acceptable year of The Lord. Exodus 12 said the Passover Lamb should be of the first year.
What annoys me is how the 3 to 4 year ministry continues to be accepted by people who do not have a preterist view of the 70th Week. Since it's origin (yes even among Early Church Fathers who taught it, Eusebius was the first) is in trying to justify a Preterist view of the 70th Week, that Jesus ministry was the first half.
But it's mistaken even as a Preterist view, I've decided a Preterist interpretation of the 70 Weeks isn't impossible (I see it as a dual fulfillment), but that when you clarify certain misunderstandings there is still no doubt that the Crucifixion was where the 69th ends and 70th begins, not the middle of a Week.
The Crucifixion being in Nisan makes it being the middle of a year impossible.