The idea of a one-year ministry is not new. Some of the early church fathers spoke of it, as did some scholars in the 1800's. You might be interested in downloading this old book Harmony of the Gospels (1831) by Lant Carpenter and John Gorham Palfrey. Go to this site:
Select the "PDF" file (14 Mytes) on the left side menu. It is a complete photograph of every single page in the book.
Here are the first few pages from the Preface:
Dr. Carpenter, in his "Introduction to the Geography of the New Testament," has explained his plan for a Harmony of the Four Gospels, giving directions for the construction of such a Harmony, which have been observed in the arrangement of the following pages.
According to prevailing views on the subject, represented in the Harmony of Archbishop Newcome, the ministry of our Lord, beginning with his baptism, comprehended four Passovers, or extended through something more than three years; and in settling the succession of events, recorded by the first three evangelists, the order of Luke deserves a general preference. Dr. Carpenter understands the length of the ministry to have somewhat exceeded one year, including but two Passovers; and prefers the order of Matthew, where it differs from that of Mark and Luke. These questions open an argument of great extent. A few general statements relating to it are all that would here be in place.
The early writers of the church, who have alluded to this subject, are understood to have been almost unanimously of the opinion maintained by Dr. Carpenter. Authorities to this point may be seen in Mann de Veris Annis Christi Natali et Emortuali. Dissert. 2 a, cap 2o; Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. III, Part II. p. 63; and Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on Daniel, Part I chapter II. Irenseus indeed, in the second century, is an exception, extending the ministry to nearly twenty years, and maintaining his opinion from Luke iii. 23 [Luke 3:23], John viii. 57 [John 8:57] - Eusebius, in the fourth century, was, as far as appears, the first to start the theory of four Passovers, though he understood the events recorded by the first three evangelists, from the commencement of our Lord's preaching, to have been included within one year.
The phenomena of the Gospels themselves may seem to favor the opinion, which limits the ministry of Jesus to a year and some months. Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention but one Passover; viz. that at which he was crucified. John (ii. 23.) [John 2:23] distinctly mentions another. By the advocates of the theory of four Passovers, he is understood to speak of yet two others ; viz. in v. 1 [John 5:1], and vi. 4 [John 6:4]. He says, (v. 1. [John 5:1]) "There was a feast of the Jews;" not defining what feast. For any evidence afforded by the verse, or, apparently, from any other source, it is quite as likely to have been a Pentecost. That it has been supposed to have been a Passover, is perhaps giving to the article being prefixed in some copies to the word rendered feast; the feast, by eminence, being interpreted to be no other than the Passover. But if the various reading were a good one, it would sustain no satisfactory argument of the kind, and the weight of authorities, in this case, is with the text of the common edition.
To reconcile John vi. 4 [John 6:4], with that opinion of Christian antiquity, which included but two Passovers in the ministry, different methods have been proposed. Dr. Priestley thought the words, "to pascha", the Passover, to be an interpolation, and this not only on conjecture, but on the ground, that ancient writers, who were in search of such texts, do not appear to have found the words in their copies. Bishop Pearce conceived the whole verse to be spurious, arguing that it breaks the continuity of the narrative, that nothing in the chapter has relation to any feast, and that John would hardly have repeated an explanation which he had already given, (ii. 13. [John 2:13]) The strong objection to these solutions of the difficulty is, that they resort to unauthorized alterations of the text.
The method of Dr. Carpenter may appear not only free from objection, but demanded by all the circumstances of the case. The Gospel of John, apparently consisting, as it has been long observed to do, of distinct sections, each of which has its date,* there would be the less danger of mistake in a single deviation from a chronological arrangement of the series of these sections. The narrative in John vi. 1-21 [John 6:1-21], has such a close resemblance to that in Matthew xiv. 13-32 [Matthew 14:13-32], that it seems almost impossible to doubt that both evangelists are recording the same succession of events. These events are said by John (vi. 4. [John 6:4]) to have occurred when a Passover was nigh, and by Matthew they are placed in a closely connected history of transactions immediately preceding the last Passover, viz. that of the crucifixion; transactions, which might occupy about a month. It seems therefore to be not without good grounds, that Dr. Carpenter, making, as usual, the two passages parallel, recommends, that, to arrange the sections of John in the order of time, the third section, composed of the sixth chapter, be placed between the fifth and sixth, which are divided at chapter xi. 54-55 [John 11:54-55]. The references in vi. 4 [John 6:4], and xi. 55 [John 11:55], are then to the same Passover, and John is found to speak of only two. This argument is strengthened by the consideration of the great difficulty there is in supposing so striking a miracle as that of the feeding of the five thousand to have been wrought before our Lord's presence at the Feast of Tabernacles. (John vii. 2-6. [John 7:2-6])
Upon the question, which evangelist is to be followed in settling the chronological succession of events, the first obvious thought is, that Matthew and John, apostles of Jesus, and eyewitnesses of the later events, at least, which they record, are more likely to have intended to observe the order of time, than Mark and Luke, who were not his apostles, and do not appear to have been his attendants. Nor does the force of this re- mark seem to be abated by Luke's declaration (i. 3. [Luke 1:3]) of his purpose to write "in order"; for the word means only methodically, in distinction from less carefully digested accounts, by no means necessarily implying, that the method which he undertook to pursue was that of time. Moreover, except in the case of John vi. [John 6] which has been explained above, the order of this evangelist is not inconsistent with that of Matthew. So that the plan proposed offers the great advantage of adopting, for the chronological order of events in a Harmony, the order in which they are recorded by both of the only evangelists, who are known to have had opportunity to record from their own observation.
* The first section comprehending chapters i — iv. (dated ii. 13.) the second, chapter v. (v. 1.) ; the third, chapter vi. (vi. 4.) ; the fourth, chapters vii — x. 21. (vii. 2.) ; the fifth, chapter x. 22. —xi. 54. (x. 22.) the sixth, chapters xi. 55 — xxi. (xi. 55.)