How This Book Came About
He came from eternity crossing a cradle to cradle a wooden cross.
It is very interesting how this book came about. It started out as more or less just curiosity but ended up, since it was a curiosity for truth, killing nothing but confusion and doubt.
Three years into my Christian walk I recognized the appeal in learning the original languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew. As I would listen to Bible teachers on radio or cassette, as they would use the Greek or Hebrew word found in the text it was originally written in, and how this simply shed light onto the passage being taught, I was drawn to that.
At the time, however, I never had a clue where that was going to lead me. I thought I would start to learn the Greek language someday, but I never would have guessed that I was going to partly translate the Gospels into English. I certainly did not think there was a need for it.
Meanwhile, after a couple years of studying the Greek, I read the accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus. While reading them, I noticed how when the two accounts are considered together, they seem to become more confusing. Realizing that something was lacking in my understanding, I was drawn into piecing them together, hoping for clarity.
That was a very strenuous activity mentally at that point in my life (as was studying the Greek). But it was worth getting past the strain because I made some very fascinating discoveries. But the short of it is, I did not plan on making a book. One thing just lead to another until, finally, I noticed that what was coming together was a book.
I saw other things that seemed to be discrepancies, like the one mentioned above with the birth of Jesus, but all of them have been resolved. I will explain some of them in this preface and others in the endnotes throughout this book.
Well, since the birth of Jesus was the initial dilemma I was drawn to resolve, what better place to start?
So then, even though the shepherds and the wise men coming to visit the baby Jesus in a manger at the same time is a popular story, that is not exactly how it happened. This is demonstrated by the fact that when one reads Luke's account of the shepherds, and Matthew's account of the wise men, it is impossible to harmonize the two. The reason is simple. They did not happen at the same time.
But then the question is: How do they fit?
Once I walked into this question, I then needed to read and reread these two accounts and the context surrounding them, looking for details to determine the correct chronology. It was obvious that they did not happen at the same time, and it was certain that the shepherds had visited Jesus on the very day He was born (see Luke 2:8-15, especially the phrase "There is born to you THIS DAY . . .").
That is when I noticed a detail I would have normally just read through. Mary was still in Jerusalem forty days after Jesus was born. His parents, Mary and Joseph, had brought Jesus into His Father's house in Jerusalem to dedicate Him. This was in obedience to the command given through Moses in Leviticus 12:1-8 (Luke 2:21-24) - which was a forty-day task. Mary and Joseph had to wait forty days after Jesus was born to bring Him to God's house for the sacrifice required for the birth of a baby boy (Leviticus 12:1-8).
When that fact is understood in light of the verses that say how Joseph woke his family up and fled to Egypt in the same night the wise men left - "in the middle of that night (Matthew 2:13-14)" - it requires that the sacrifice had to be made before the wise men's visit, and that the wise men's visit had to be at least 40 days after Jesus' birth.
Additionally, Joseph ran like the angel told him to because Herod was going to "kill all the baby boys two years old and younger." He did this - watch this, it is important - "according to the time Herod had determined from the wise men as to when they had first seen the star (Matthew 2:7)."
How much clearer could it be? Herod killed all the baby boys two years old and younger because he thought Jesus could be two years old.
All the details given in the text points to the fact that Jesus was most likely born two years prior to the point the wise men came to visit Him. The wise men saw the star two years before they actually arrived in Jerusalem to visit Jesus, and we have no reason to think that He was not born on the day the wise men first saw the star! We can not prove He was, but there is no reason to think otherwise.
All taken together, the wise men had to have made their visit no less than forty days after Jesus was born, since Mary and Joseph had fled the same night the wise men had come, and it was most likely two years after He was born. This is supported by the fact that the wise men had visited Jesus as "a small child" instead of a baby, and "in a house," not in a manger in a cave (Matthew 2:11).
I was thrilled! And it is what has caused me to do this project in the first place and to write this introduction.
With regards to this book, what I had done was, I went back and forth through the Gospels making comparisons. After doing this, and gaining a clear understanding of the chronology of Jesus' birth and visit from the wise men (which was a lot of work, as I have mentioned above), I had made only an attempt at figuring out the chronology of His crucifixion and resurrection. Finding that way too complicated at the time, I put the idea aside.
(And being an orderly and systematic person, I had a distinct impression that I would not be capable of focusing clearly on piecing together the crucifixion and resurrection until I first had the rest of the Gospels that lead up to that point figured out.)
And so having just gone through this experience, and having passively resigned to not making any attempt at what I saw to be a laborious task, God's hand began to move in my life about a year or two after my first attempt at harmonizing the Gospels.
The first thing He did was through my employer. They were getting rid of their old XT computers. And since there were so many employees interested in buying one (which were relatively expensive in those days), the company I worked for decided to raffle off the opportunities to get one.
I signed up, and so did a Christian friend of mine. When it was time for the raffle, we both went down after work to participate.
To my surprise, there were so many people there that after only a few minutes of waiting for it to begin, I remembered that I had never won a raffle in my entire life - even if it would be just me and another person, much less all the people that had showed up for this raffle. I looked at my friend and said, "I'm leaving." Just then, as I turned around to leave, they called the first name. It was mine!
The next day my friend said with a smile, "It looks like God has plans for you."
After bringing the computer home, I had fun getting familiar with working on it. Eventually, I had the opportunity to purchase a new one with a word processor and some very good Bible software that contained the Greek and Hebrew texts.
With these new tools, I printed out each individual copy of the four Gospels and began to piece them together, word by word. I spliced them together so that all the details were included and never a detail repeated.
That is, I first took the parallel accounts that some or all of the Gospels included (for example, "The feeding of the five thousand"), each from their own perspective, laid them side by side, and went back and forth between them, rewriting them, detail by detail, into one new and complete account. I was striving to meticulously preserve every detail but without ever repeating any.
For example, if Matthew says "they were joyful," and Mark said, "they began to be joyful," while Luke said, "they were exceedingly joyful," I wrote, "they began to be exceedingly joyful." It was in this way that I combined all the details.
Another element that aided me in this project was, I had read a book that pointed out how Matthew, in particular, placed certain events in a different chronological order for various and deliberate reasons (more on that later). Having this brought to my awareness, I then had to decide on which Gospel to use as a basis for providing a chronological framework. And since Luke says, "having had perfect understanding from the very beginning . . . I set in order the accounts . . . (Luke 1:1-4)," his seemed to be the obvious choice.
And, then, as I had what Luke didn't have - the witness of John and the capabilities of a computer - I took the individual portions that I had already stitched together, and I began to splice them into chronological order. (This was all before I was even aware of A. T. Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels.)
I did this as I would any other puzzle. For example, with a regular puzzle, I first piece together little sections that have clearer images, then I go back to connect all those smaller portions into the completed puzzle. Then the full picture is in view.
When I did this with the Gospels, some very interesting insights came into view. They were insights that had come from what the context dictated. Things I just would not have seen until I focused on the context as all four Gospels present it. (I have written these insights as endnotes to the main text.)
After I had finished piecing the Gospels together into what was now one fluent account, having gained a new and more complete understanding, no longer cut up into fragments served on a plate of confusion, I noticed more and more how it needed to be re-translated.
For one, it had ended up being very awkward at the seams. As well, it had some things that had appeared to be irreconcilable differences because of inaccurate translations due to the translator's lack of the complete context, a context that can only be seen once the Gospels are pieced together as a whole.
There were four or five of these points that seemed to be contradictions, but I have also explained these in their respective endnotes.
So I translated the Gospel, and had translated most of it rather word for word. However, there were times when I found that a word for word translation was somewhat obscure in meaning (but only because of our modern colloquialisms). At these points, I switched to replacing their colloquialisms (the Hebrew's) for ours. For instance, "Truly, truly, I say to you . . ." came to be, "I assure you. . . ."
(By the way, the Greek of the Gospels uses Hebrew idioms and colloquialisms totally foreign to the Greek language, and they are idioms and colloquialisms not found in any other classical Greek literature. At least that is what I have read about on this subject, since I have never read any classical Greek literature myself. And this is why some have deduced that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew, or at least written by a person who was from a Hebrew cultural background.)
When it came to translating words that are almost always transliterated, like baptism and repentance, I have, instead, translated them into their actual meanings. At times I have found this to be rather enlightening, especially with the word "repentance."
But there are times where this had become a little awkward. For example I translated Holy Spirit as "Set apart and Holy Spirit of God." "Holy [meaning 'Morally upright'] and set apart [an additional meaning of the word holy] Spirit [of God], ('of God' being implied)." And since the desire with this book is to give us a clearer understanding of the Gospels, I think this was necessary to do it in these instances.
It cannot be stressed strong enough, however, that having a compilation of the four Gospels does not nullify them of their independent worth. It does become an excellent reference having all four Gospels in a single account. And it is enjoyable to just leisurely read through the life of Jesus and His ministry as you would any other true story - His being the best of them.
There are other benefits having all four Gospels in one orderly account. For instance, though I could never seem to remember where things can be found within context of any of the other gospels - for one I couldn't even remember which of the four books it was in, in some cases, much less which chapter and verse - if I was asked today where to find the time Jesus met the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:22 & Mark 7:26), I can. Because now, from my understanding given by this orderly account, I remembered that it had happened just after Jesus fed the five thousand. It was a time when, because of this miracle, Jesus' followers tried to make Him king by force (John 6:15).
This is something He responds to by leaving the area of Capernaum, going north and outside the Jewish population to get away from this unwanted turn of events. (He was also avoiding the Pharisees who had wanted to kill Him because of what He taught as a result of the feeding of the five thousand, when He said they had to eat his flesh and drink His blood, a very un-kosher thing.)
It was because of the combination of these things that Jesus went north, outside of the district of Israel, where He met the Canaanite woman. And knowing that from reading this book, I am now able to find it quickly by referring to the book's table of contents, where I find that it is in chapter five of this book.
A benefit related to the one described above is, I can also go to the specific place in chapter five of this book and find where the Canaanite woman's encounter is located within any of the four gospels - in whichever one, or all of the Gospels this account can be found. This is done with what is at the end of each verse in this book.
For instance, the book, chapter, and verse where any particular account can be found in the individual Gospels are recorded at the end of each verse in this book. And the following is what it looks like where Matthew 14:14, Mark 6:34, Luke 9:11b, and John 6:3 are found:
. . . (M 14:14, K 6:34, L 9:11b, J 6:3).
(M standing for Matthew, K for Mark, L, Luke, and J, John.)
That, however, is just one way in which this book is beneficial, as you will find out when you read the ministry of Jesus in its entire context.
Here is an example: When Jesus got into a boat with His disciples, a man came to Him and said, "I'll follow You wherever you go." With which, Jesus replies, "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." Well, when you follow the context leading up to this point, you find that Jesus was staying regularly at Peter's house for quite awhile. It was only until the crowds got so big that, as it says, "they [Jesus and His disciples] couldn't even eat (Mark 3:20)." That is when He started His new tactic of crossing over the sea in a boat. It was to get some relief from the crowds.
That is also why, as it says, when His disciples did take Him into the boat at that time, "they took Him into the boat as He was (Mark 4:36, author's mine)," meaning "tired as He was." (I have italicized the word that I have added, such as "tired" in this passage so that you will know that they are not in the original Greek text, explicitly, but are, rather, things implied by the context; or that they are things I have added to draw our attention back to the context, in order to aid us into clearly understanding what is being communicated.)
The last benefit I would like to mention is concerning the ability we now have with this book to read up to all four accounts without having to go back and forth, comparing each of them in any particular Gospel, making sure to get each and every detail - sometimes even having to read the similarities up to as much as four times over. This is a great benefit when one wants to read the Gospels as a whole, without repeatedly reading the same details.
I hope I have demonstrated enough benefit from having the Gospels in this form so that you can appreciate what's available to you. But there are also other issues pertaining to the Gospels that we also need to look at, as explained below.
A Brief Comparison of the Four Gospels
To better understand the background of the four Gospels, it is understood that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, without the Gospel of John, are referred to as the synoptic Gospels. This is because they are very similar in many ways (synoptic being a derivative of our word "synonym," meaning, the same).
The overall basic similarity is this: These three books record Jesus' ministry and the things He did while He and His disciples remained in the regions of Galilee, and only the events in-between each feast - feasts the Israelites had to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate. While the book of John gives, on the other hand, only the accounts of Jesus' ministry as they were during these feasts. All of which, except one, happened while He went to Jerusalem for the celebration surrounding it.
In other words, Matthew, Mark, and Luke focus on Jesus' ministry while He was doing things in Galilee, and John focuses on things that occurred while Jesus was staying in Jerusalem (or Judea; Judea being the area within which Jerusalem is located) because it was during the feasts.
Not so obvious, though, was why all four recorded the feeding of the five thousand. But after piecing them together, I found that Matthew, Mark, and Luke records it because it happened while Jesus remained in Galilee. But John record it because it happened on Passover (one of the feasts), even though Jesus didn't go up to Jerusalem to celebrate it.
So, basically, the synoptic Gospels record Jesus' ministry in Galilee, and John's Gospel records His ministry in Judea. And this, in effect, gives us two specific points of focus for the Gospels - one of Jesus' Galilean ministry, and the other of His Judean ministry. (The beginning of Jesus' ministry and the crucifixion and resurrection are included in all four for obvious reasons.) This book gives us His complete ministry in Galilee and Judea combined.
Details In the Gospels That Show Forth a Specific Chronology
In order to complete this project it was necessary for me to first synthesize the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke; then to take on what seemed, in the beginning, to be the daunting task of coupling the combination of the three synoptic Gospels with the single account as it is recorded in the Gospel of John.
This was a challenge because most of the book of John is not even mentioned in the other three Gospels. And that made it hard to find where to splice them together accurately - that is, piecing the now single synoptic account together with John's account without interjecting my own opinions, or relying on vague assumptions.
This is when I found that some details in the text, which did not appear to be too significant at first, actually proved to be very important for the fact that they would not allow portions of John to be placed in any other areas except where they belong.
Look at it this way, where would the account of Jesus celebrating the feast of the Jews in John's book (5:1-47) fit into the picture within the context of the story as it would be once I had the three Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke finally synthesized? Phew! As I puzzled over this in the back of my mind, and after I had finally finished weaving the three synoptic Gospels together, I found that there were really only two possible gaps - gaps provided by the context that allowed this portion of John's Gospel to be placed into the, now, single account - the new single account that was compiled from the three synoptic Gospels.
The first gap was after Jesus gave "The Sermon on the Mount," when, as Luke says, "Now it came to pass, afterwards, that He [Jesus] went through every city and village . . . (8:1)," and so on - leaving, with its broad generalization, an open end. The second gap was after Jesus taught "The Parable of the Sower," when the text concludes with the generalization, "So Jesus went about all the cities and villages . . . (Matthew 9:35)," again, leaving an open-end or gap.
These two gaps being the only ones provided as a possible location for John's account to take up the baton. (In the rest of the text, leading up to these gaps, the unbroken narration leaves no possibility to insert John's material.)
To demonstrate what I mean, consider this summary of the text that leads up to the first gap. (While doing this, take special note of the bolded text.) Starting at3:24of this book, the text goes as follows: On the first "Sabbath, He [Jesus] heals a man in the congregation, and as He left the congregation, He went into Peter's house and healed his wife's mother. . . . Then early in the morning, He went to a deserted place to pray, where His disciples came to look for Him. . . . To which He then replies, 'Come, we must preach to the other cities also.' Then on the second Sabbath . . ." and so on. Finally ending with the following general description: "After this, He traveled down into every city and village preaching and announcing the good news of the kingdom of God, and the twelve were with Him."
In this way, the text leaves no room for Jesus to visit Jerusalem to celebrate a feast until this point. This is especially the case when you consider that it was about a four-day trip to get to Jerusalem and back, and that without even staying after they arrived. (Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles both being about a seven-day feast in and of themselves, extends this time constraint even further.)
Seeing these two gaps, then, I assumed that since the account of what Jesus had done between this first Sabbath and the first gap was a small amount of narrative and, therefore, looked like it could not have taken five months, the second gap, I concluded, had to be where this portion from John's book had to go.
But though it seemed logical to me at the time, my assumption soon proved to be beyond what was written when the context right after the first gap tells us that, ". . . then the multitude came together again (Mark 3:20)." This is important because they could not have come together again unless they had first been separated.
But the evidence doesn't end there. The text also says that "the scribes and Pharisees came down from Jerusalem to find fault with Him (Mark 3:22)." This would only make sense, then, if Jesus had just said something in Jerusalem to summons them, such as, "Do not think I will accuse you to the Father . . . there is one who accuses you . . . Moses in whom you trust." And, "You search the scriptures . . . but you refuse to come to Me to have life (John 5:45, my paraphrase)."
And if you noticed, this second text is even from the portion of John's book that is in question - the text in John's book that I was trying to find where it belonged in reference to the synoptic accounts.
What Jesus said in Jerusalem would also explain why those from His own hometown came to Him at this point and said, "He is out of His mind (Mark 3:21)."
Imagine someone you know making claims such as those above.
Well, this is what He did when He was in Jerusalem.
But to close the lid on the case, when we look at the portion of John's text that immediately follows the second gap, we see that it is linked directly with the events in the synoptic Gospels that, no doubt, follow directly after this second gap.
The portion I am speaking of is the account when Jesus feeds the five thousand. It is this portion that describes how Jesus did not go to Jerusalem for the feast, but that He stayed in Galilee, causing it to be recorded by both the synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel, as we have discussed earlier in this preface.
And since it is directly linked with the events recorded in the synoptic Gospels of the so-called second gap, it shows that there really is no second gap at all. There is only one gap, and it is the one that originally looked like the first of two gaps.
Therefore, my premise not to "go beyond what's written (1 Corinthians 4:6)" quickly replaced my assumption.
And so it is, if you are at a fork in the road, and you assume one way is better than the other, but you don't read the signs, there is a good chance you could take a wrong turn that will lead you somewhere you don't want to be. That would have been the case if I had not conceded to the fact that the first gap was the correct location for John's portion to be inserted.
Another example where I had discovered the correct chronology is with the time Jesus first called Peter, Jacob (Jacob being the Greek name behind the name everyone knows as James), John, and Andrew to follow Him. Each Gospel appears to place it in a different location chronologically. And since Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not agree with each other on the sequence of this event - for whatever reasons they had (these reasons being laced throughout this entire book's preface and endnotes) - I had to rely on the contextual clues to determine the proper location.
This was especially the case when compared to John's Gospel that gives even an entirely different account of what seems to be, upon a casual reading, the only time Jesus calls them to follow Him (John 1:35-51). (In fact, at this point, as described in John's Gospel, He doesn't even call Jacob, John, Andrew, and Peter to follow Him at all; He only calls Philip (John 1:43).)
And so it was, the compiled portion of this account from each of the three synoptic Gospels, as far as I could tell at first, could have went before Jesus healed Peter's Mother-in-law, or afterwards. How was I to know?
What I mean is, Jesus could have gone to Peter's house, first, looking for him, healed his mother-in-law, and only later found him by the lake. Or He could have gone to Peter's house while they were with Him, after He had already called them out at the lake, so that He could have a place to stay. Who can tell?
On finding a solution, the first clue, I later noticed, was when the text says, "Now in the morning [the morning after the night Jesus healed Peter's Mother-in-law], having risen long before day-light [not giving Him time to do anything in between, like go to the lake and find them fishing], He departed and went into a deserted place, and there He prayed. So Simon," it continues, "and those who were with Him, searched for Him (Mark 1:37, author's emphasis)."
Therefore, Peter is obviously with Jesus at this point, and so Jesus had to have called Peter to follow Him before He healed his mother-in-law. Case closed!
The second clue, which should have been even more obvious, was when Jesus first entered the house where He healed Peter's Mother-in-law, when it says, "He arose from the congregation and entered Simon and Andrew's house, with Jacob and John (Mark 1:29, author's emphasis)."
And so, given these details, and now with my new understanding, Jesus had to have called them prior to this point! How much prior, that was another test.
In every instance like this, there were roadblocks on either side of where any particular text was finally pinpointed and placed - context not allowing it to go anywhere else.
And there are quite a few of these examples that came up as I pieced these books together. But I cannot write an explanation for all of them in this preface; therefore, I have included them as endnotes.
Now be warned, this next section may be too dry for some. Others, like myself, may enjoy it very much. And if it does start to lose you, you may want to skip to the next section titled, Details Used to Discover the Correct Chronology .
A Historical Background of the Four Individual Gospel Texts
Now for a brief background on each of the individual four books, it is generally accepted that there was a document which scholars have now labeled the "Q" (coming from the German word Quelle, meaning "spring" or "source").
This "Q," it is believed, was an account of Jesus' life and ministry recorded into several divisions, the first having all the miracles, the second all the narrative, and the third all the teachings. They deduced this from Matthew's apparent lack of chronological concern when compared to the comment in Luke 1:1-3 that says, "Just as many have taken in hand to set in order the account of those things that have been fulfilled in our midst. As those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us . . . (Author's paraphrase)."
There does also seem to be evidence of this when one compares similar accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For instance, Matthew 9:2 and Mark 2:5 (as well as many other places) when compared with each other are exact in every detail.
The problem comes in when you consider the differences between these same accounts. For one, why would Luke copy one sentence word for word from this so-called "Q" but then paraphrase the rest of the paragraph? Not only that, but the differences between them are much more abundant then their similarities.
However, when you consider that even though all three Gospels record the same details, it quickly becomes evident that since they each have a different order of phrases or choice of one or two words that communicate the same thought, they, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have each independently translated them from another language. That is why they have the differences they do, even though every thought is the same.
To illustrate, look at the example below concerning the words "He said:" ("M" standing for Matthew and "K" for Mark):
M 9:2: καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ ᾽Ιησοῡι τὴν πἰστιν αὐτϖν εῒπεν τᾧ
and seeing the Jesus the faith of them He said to the
K 2:5: καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ ᾽Ιησοῡι τὴν πἰστιν αὐτϖν λέγει τᾧ
παραλυτικᾧ θάρσει τέκνον ἁφίενται σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι.
paralytic have courage child forgiven of you the sins.
παραλυτικᾧ (Not in Mark) τέκνον ἁφίενται σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι.
Notice the different choices of the Greek words for "He said" (the words εῒπεν (eipen) and λέγει (legei) being equally valid words for translating the same thought of, "he said.") This is evidence, in my opinion, of two different people translating the same source. (This is only one of many, and also a very simple example.)
Along with that, Mark gives specific details in instances where Luke leaves it out. And since a big concern for Luke was in giving detail (Luke 1:3), it does not make sense that he would not have also included the details Mark included in his book - if he did, indeed, have Mark's as a reference.
If anything, it sometimes appears that Mark knew of, or had Luke's book, and gave details Luke wasn't familiar with – the same way a person would interject a detail they saw as important to a story as his friend was telling it to someone with whom they were both speaking.
An example of this would be how Mark puts the time Jesus first calls Peter, Jacob, John, and Andrew to follow Him. He puts it just before these four men searched for Him (after Jesus had healed Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1:35))," and tells us that they had searched for Jesus while He was alone praying. And that it was, in fact, Peter among those who had found Jesus (Mark 1:35-37). This is a detail Luke leaves out. Luke does not mention that Peter was there.
Also, as alluded to earlier, according to the "Q" document theory, there is a debate as to whether Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke referred to it, or whether Luke was first, and Mark and Matthew used Luke, and so on. . . .
But as I spliced these three Gospels together it became evident that, due to the differences, each one was most likely and for the most part written independently, or translated from a group of eye-witness accounts (originally written in' Hebrew), each on its own. (Please refer back tothe different choice of Greek words used by each author in the example a little earlier.)
Again, the Bible does not teach us how, and when, or even who wrote which book. And since this is also something that is "beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6)" - to avoid taking one man's opinion over another - these discussions cannot be qualified to be placed on the same level and authority as Scripture. But they can, in our lives, still be fun for consideration and friendly discussion.
However, let me put out this one warning: The "Q" document theory is believed to be evidence of plagiarism on the part of the authors of the synoptic Gospels. The evidence, on the other hand, speaks nothing of such a notion.
That being understood, the question is, "who really wrote which book?" Or, why is Mark called "Mark?" Nowhere in the book does the author identify himself as Mark. This is the same with Matthew and Luke. (Luke does, however, give very good evidence that He wrote the book bearing his name, as well as the book of Acts. This is deduced from the fact that in Acts 16:6-10 the narration switches from "they" to "we" right as Luke is introduced into the picture. Along those same lines, in the beginning of Acts, the author identifies himself as the author, also, of his "previously written account" - the book of Luke.)
Now, evidently, from the sense of Mark's book, it was none other than John-Mark who wrote it. The same Mark Paul vehemently refused to let join him in the beginning of his ministry with Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41). For it was this Mark who, from there, became at least a familiar acquaintance to Peter (1 Peter 5:13 and Acts 12:12-13).
This would also explain the details that only Mark gives, such as, in the beginning of Jesus' ministry, as Matthew and Luke say, "A few of Jesus' disciples searched for Him, while He was alone praying." Mark, like the other two, proclaims this - that it was a few of His disciples who came to look for Him, but he also mentions one of their names. Peter.
Is that not odd? Why didn't he say John or Andrew instead of Peter - or anyone else's name for that matter? It would seem to be that it was because Mark was getting the information from Peter and then wrote the gospel we now know, traditionally, as Mark.
Even more interesting is the account of Jesus' transfiguration on the mount. It is interesting because it says that Jesus only took Peter, Jacob, and John with Him.
Why is this interesting? Because it does not seem likely that John gave us this account (since it is not included in his gospel), and Jacob, being the second martyr (Acts 12:2) - which was rather early in the post-resurrection days - makes it most likely that he did not give us this testimony either. So then, the only person left is Peter.
Therefore, it seems that Peter would be the writer of at least this account from this so-called "Q," if there really were such a thing.
But it is more likely that Peter handed it down to Mark, who then wrote it in what eventually became known to us as the Gospel of Mark.
Considering Peter's character, it seems to me that he was probably more of an orator than a writer. On top of that, why would he write his book in these three divisions, as it is suggested of this so-called "Q?"
Therefore, it seems that the only thing that would explain the fragmented character of this "Q" document (if there really even was such a thing), and that it had to be, as Luke says, "put in order" - this "Q" document would have probably been a collection of shorter portions of Jesus' ministry written by one, or even a few of the eye witnesses.
Luke, again, seems to indicate this when he says, "Just as those (plural) who were eyewitnesses handed them down to us (Luke 1:2)."
In other words, given the differences in the similar accounts, either Peter, perhaps, taught these things at different times, and others wrote them down, each from a slightly different angle; or it was as Luke clearly says, ". . . those (plural) who were eyewitnesses . . . delivered them to us (Luke 1:2)."
So then, it had to have been: Several of the apostles wrote different, and even some of the same accounts, each from a slightly different perspective, and these in individual smaller portions. And they were then eventually collected by people, such as Luke, who, then "set them in order."
This idea even seems to be evident when the Apostle Paul writes, "Bring me the books [the Torah and the prophets] and especially [indicating something special] the parchments [parchments being more like letter-size writing materials than scrolls] (2 Timothy 4:13)."
The parchments, then, could quite possibly be those things handed down by the eyewitnesses,and eventually given to Paul, and then to Luke who also set them in order (Luke 1:3).
And Luke would have acquired them from Paul, seeing that he was one of Paul's closest companions.
Therefore, the evidence points to Luke as the author of this Gospel bearing his name.
Matthew, now, does not seem to be so clear. It is traditionally held that Matthew, the tax collector, wrote the book of Matthew. This is held on account that it is the only Gospel that identifies Matthew - not as his second name, Levi, or even as "The Tax Collector" but by his main name, Matthew. Of course, someone would think that he would have used his true name, unlike someone who would have referred to him - even sometimes possibly somewhat derogatorily, to emphasize the saving grace of Jesus - as "The Tax Collector."
But it seems strange to me, then, that his book would be the one most out of sequential order. Sometimes it even appears so blatant that it becomes obvious his concern was not at all in the order of events, but that his intent all along was more in recording Jesus' teachings. That is why it is said that his book focuses mainly on and has the most, compared to the other two synoptic Gospels, of Jesus' teachings.
As well (which has been observed by others in the past), his book is in five main teaching divisions. The most popular being the "Sermon on the Mount," which is followed by narration (the narration given to illustrate the principles taught).
A couple others would be "The Parable of the Sower" and "The Olivet Discourse."
So, either, Matthew, the tax collector, wrote this book and just wasn't concerned, necessarily, with the order of events; or it is also one of those books that Luke refers to, when he says, "Just as many have set in order . . . (Luke 1:1, author's paraphrase)."
But if the book of Matthew is one of those that Luke refers to as someone who made an attempt at setting in order an account of Jesus life and ministry, that would make it a book written by someone who was not an eyewitness. And if that were the case, Matthew, who was not only just an eyewitness but also one of Jesus' inner-circle, could not have been the author to this book.
That is an unlikely argument to win.
Details Used to Discover the Correct Chronology
After understanding the particulars of the synoptic Gospels individually, to begin piecing them together, due to the nature of the book of Matthew and its apparently messed up chronology, and, consequently, the general disagreement with the other Gospels, it was immediately apparent to me that I needed to pick one of the books as a reference for joining all the gospels together.
Therefore, I decided because of Luke's statement, ". . . having perfect understanding from the very first . . . ," His book was the one for the job.
Later, as the context came into view, however, Mark's book proved to be the only one completely concerned and clearly accurate in its chronology (although Luke's book does have a large portion of Jesus' teachings without any chronological details).
Luke's chronology is accurate where it describes it, but Luke, at times, does use some vague statements, indicating that he did not have certain specifics, even though he knew the general chronology. (Therefore, his comment about having had perfect understanding may have more to do with giving an accurate and truthful report than in having every minute detail pertaining to a specific chronology.)
To see this, consider Jesus' visit of Jericho short before His crucifixion. In most translations of Luke's Gospel, it says that Jesus met blind Bartimaeus as He was entering Jericho, while Matthew and Mark say that it was as Jesus was leaving Jericho.
Well, due to the nature of this conflict, I immediately thought of a certain beggar whom I used to see everyday as I left work. He did not just stand anywhere. He stood in a strategic place, a place where he could be in the path of the most people.
That is when I saw that since Jesus healed Bartimaeus at the time of Passover, and that many of the Jews from all over Israel were going up to Jerusalem, having to pass through Jericho, a beggar would have most likely situated himself where he could get the most people.
Therefore, if Bartimaeus had been on the side opposite Jerusalem, he would have only been able to cover one of the possible several entrances into the city. But if he were on the side in-between Jericho and Jerusalem, he would have gotten everybody who needed to either pass through, or leave Jericho.
But that was not conclusive enough by itself. Other evidence was needed. The evidence ended up being that if Mark even knew his name, "Bartimaeus (10:46)," it is most likely that he also knew the correct side of Jericho that he was sitting on to beg for money (10:46).(This, along with the other very few discrepancies between Mark and Luke, Mark always proved to be the clearer of the two, chronologically speaking.)
However, to explain what may appear to be Luke's error in chronology, after further investigation, I learned that in the Hebrew mind-set a statement such as the one he used, when he said, "as Jesus approached Jericho" - it is synonymous to saying, "at the time He came to Jericho."
It was not necessarily for the purpose of giving the location from which they were approaching Jericho, but the relation of it to Jesus' ministry in its entirety. That is, it was not that it was while Jesus was on His way into Jericho (in other words, entering Jericho) that He healed him, but that it was when Jesus approached Jericho within the whole of His ministry.
Another way it could be translated is: "Jesus healed Bartemaeus at the point in His ministry when He came into Jericho."
Before I saw it this way, however, I used to think that Luke wasn't clear on all the chronology of Jesus ministry. But now I stand corrected. Luke's gospel, like Mark's, also proved to be completely accurate in its chronology. Luke just has a little less details at some points, and at these points generalized the narrative - though accurately.
Other than that, at first, what I had done to determine a chronology was, I numbered each subtitle as given by the NKJV for each of these three synoptic Gospels. Then, using Luke as a reference, I weaved the subtitles of Matthew and Mark into a sequence according to how it is given by Luke's chronological account.
It was in this way that I was enabled to get an outline to go by. It gave me a rough outline for weaving the three gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke together. (It also, which I was unaware of at the time, allowed me to see that Mark and Luke actually agree completely on the chronology.)
After weaving together the synoptic Gospels, I then inserted John's material. In other words, I had first woven the similar accounts, such as the feeding of the five thousand, together, inserted John's material, and then linked those larger chunks into what it is now this fluent chronological account. (To see what I mean, I have given endnotes at the particular points when things like this happened.)
Now this is just a summary of the whole synoptic Gospel discussion, and since the purpose of this book is not to write about those things but to give us a single account of the Gospel, I have only felt it appropriate to include this subject as a preface.
Difficulties that Needed Resolutions
To finish the preface, there are certain passages with which Matthew, Mark, and Luke put at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, which John puts at the end (Jesus ministry being four Passovers1 with "not many days" before the first Passover (John 2:12), making it come out to be a little over three years, or three years and several days). When the external and internal evidence for each of these accounts are investigated, it is apparent that they really actually happened in both instances.
You can read about that for each of these accounts in their respective endnotes.
There are a very few minor ones among the last sections of Luke's book, but the main doubled accounts are:
- When Jesus' feet were anointed with oil
(M 26:6-13, K 14:3-9, L 7:36-50, J 12:2-8)
- When He overturns the moneychangers
(M 21:12-17, K 11:15-26, L 19:45-48, J 2:13-22
- When your eye sins, pluck it out.
(M 5:29 & 18:9, K 9:47)
Additional Information
Probably the most valuable extra feature in this book is the set of indexes. With these indexes, you can find passages you know where they are in the Gospels but may not be able to find them in this book.
For instance, if you wanted to see John 8:2 in this book, you would go to these indexes, which are found on the menu bar at the top of this and each web page, and find where it is located. This can be done by going to the index portion for John's book, find where it reads "(J 8:2) (J standing for John)," and click on the link, which is in chapter 6 verse 24 of this book. For example:
(J 8:2a) 6:25
(J 8:3-6a) 6:25
(J 8:6b-8) 6:26
(J 8:9-10) 6:27
Another helpful feature in this book are the verse pointers that are placed at the end of each run of any particular Gospels account.
For instance, after Matthew's genealogy, as it is recorded in this book, the next verse is from the Gospel of Luke. But in order to find where Matthew picks up again, I have included, as a SUBscript, the chapter and verse where it can be found. Consider (M 1:171:40) where it indicates, with its subscript text, that Matthew 1:18 can be found in chapter 1, verse 40 of this book.
The same is true for the reverse. The verse directly proceeding Matthew 1:18 in this book is Luke 1:80. Therefore, in order to show you where Matthew 1:17 can be found, I have included a SUPERscript that informs us of where we can find it. It is in chapter 1, verse 12 of this book. For example, (1:13M 1:18-21).
Just for the record, I have also, after finishing this project, found that there already are some chronological records of the Gospel. But they were not put together in the same way as this book.
As well, none of them have the useful reference tools that this book provides. And they are also not re-translations. One is from around the late 1800s, and the other is by a pro tennis player from the 70's. There is another one, named the Diatessaron, which was done by a man named Tatian in 160 AD. (It was very popular in its day, I remember hearing once, but Tatian ended up being recognized as a heretic, and so his account came into disuse.)
A very important point that needs to be made, however, is I do not think that this book makes each individual gospel obsolete, or that they are now even less valuable than they have maintained to be throughout their existence in history.
This book's best value is for being a stepping-stone to gain a clearer understanding of the Gospels in context when you read the individual accounts as they are in the Bible. For I am convinced there is a reason God gave them down to us in this way, as I hope the following article will demonstrate.
May God bless you in your effort to get to know Him better with the help of this book.
The Four Faces of Ezekiel
Four creatures having a human form, each form with four faces: the face of a lion, the face of an ox, the face of a man, and the face of an eagle. This, basically, is the vision Ezekiel describes in the first chapter of his book.
But have you ever wondered why visions - like these - are even in the Bible; or if prophecies like this have anything, at all, for us? Well beyond the obvious, the question is, "Why these faces, and what do they mean?"
And this can be a tough question. But it shouldn't be since visions in the Bible are given for the purpose of revealing something specific to us.
So with some study, as we watch this vision come to life, we will see what that is.
Naturally, we know that the lion is "The King of the Jungle." We also know an ox has been used throughout history as a servant, most popularly known for plowing fields under a yoke. Man, well, that's self-explanatory, man represents man. But an Eagle! What does that mean? For this, it is necessary to look in Deuteronomy 32:11, where it tells us that God is like "an eagle that stirs up its nest; that hovers over its young. . . ."
This alone is fascinating, because when an eagle builds her nest it uses rather large sticks, which makes the nest very uncomfortable, perhaps even painful. But being in this position, the eagle then pads the nest with the skin of animals, grass, and feathers to prepare the nest for raising her young.
When the birds are of age to fly, the mother then begins to stir the nest. In stirring up the nest, she removes the padding. And after that, she goes up and hovers over her young. She does this so that the discomfort caused from her powerful wings flapping overhead, along with the jagged sticks underneath, the chicks are encouraged to leave the nest.
When they do leave, and when they come back after their first flight, because of the condition of the nest, they, now, no longer stay in the comfort of self-pleasure. The mother does this so that they will mature properly.
Immediately after she stirs the nest, though, with her young practically falling out of the sky, the eagle then goes to catch them on her wings, teaching them to fly.
Later on, in gratification of having loved her young in this way, the eagle is then seen soaring on the heights, displayed in majesty, just as God commands even the winds for His purpose.
But as interesting as this all is, the point concerning Ezekiel's vision is that the eagle represents God (Deuteronomy 32:9-11).
Going back to the faces, then, your next question could be, "So what?"
Well lets see, the New Testament begins with four books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; all of which give us an account of Jesus' time here on earth; all four of them giving us its own picture of Him from a different view.
Now each of the writers of these four books, like any other, had a particular audience in mind. The Jews at that time - as some are now - were expecting and looking for the Messiah as the first covenant had prophesied would come. They understood the verses that described Him as being the King who was to come from the lineage of David, promised to come from the seed of Abraham. Some of them, however, stumbled over the prophecies concerning Him having to suffer before taking His throne (Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22).
Matthew wrote his book with this in mind. That is why his book begins with Jesus' genealogy, giving His ascent from King David, who came from the family of Abraham (Matthew 1:1). This is because a king must ascend to his throne. Matthew, also, throughout his book, gives the account of the times Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning Him being "The King of the Jews." For instance, when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt (21:5). But for more on how Matthew describes Jesus as the King of the Jews, read his Gospel and behold the face of a lion.
Mark, however, wrote his book with the Romans in mind, who believed a good ruler was one who served his empire well. This made them more concerned with what Jesus did, rather than what He said. That is why Mark's book continually reads, "After Jesus did such and such, He immediately went to do so and so," giving in the book of Mark a picture of Jesus as the servant. And because a servant has no genealogy he can follow, Mark, likewise, does not give the genealogy of Jesus - behold the face of an ox.
Now Luke, being a Gentile who wrote to another Gentile, Theophilus (1:3), he wrote his book concerning himself mainly with the facts, developing for us the picture of Jesus as a man. Luke's book, also, is the only one that tells us of the accounts describing Jesus as a boy. And unlike the book of Matthew, Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus as He descended from the first man, Adam (3:23-28). Behold the face of a man.
These three books are called the synoptic Gospels, coming from the same word we get the word "synonym," meaning "the same." The book of John is different from these in that they speak of the different aspects of the Messiah's humanity, describing Him as the king, the servant, and the man.
But John's book reveals Him as God. John did this to refute the teachings of the Gnostics who believed matter was purely evil. With this being so - if it were - God could not possibly have taken on a physical body. However, the very first verse in John's book begins to refute this by saying, "the word became flesh . . . and the word was God."
John's book, also, like God, has no genealogy. Again, read the book and behold the face of the Eagle.
Now another important fact to be mentioned is that these four books were not written - by each individual author's understanding - to be included together in the same volume. The book of John was written at least 20 years after the other three. And all four were not put together as one book until, the earliest, around the first quarter of the second century AD.
This goes even further, by implication, to show that He commands even the winds for His purpose. "For in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28)." For just as the eagle takes something as unattainable as the wind and uses it to do as he wills, God uses men and their circumstances around them to make His will evident to us.
If you still want more evidence for how each of these books defines the four faces, I encourage you, read the books.
An Very Important Note to Begin On
While reading this chronological account of Jesus' ministry, the following should be understood: It is possible that Jesus' given name was Yahshua rather than Yeshua. For, as it says in Matthew 1:21, "He shall be called Yahshua because He [Yah-weh] shall save His [Yah-weh's] people from their sin."
But to understand this, we need to note that the meaning of the name Yahshua when it is broken down (יהשוע) is:"Yah (יה) (which is the abbreviated form of Yhvh (יהוה), like we find in the names, Eli-Yah (Elijah) Jeremi-Yah (Jeremiah) and so on), and "y'shua (ישוע)," without the "yah" prefix, is simply the word that means "to save."
Yah-shua (יהשוע), in contrast to Y'shua (ישוע), therefore, is a Hebrew phrase that means, " Yhvh saves," rather than the name Y'shua, which means only "to save."
All this is supported by the fact that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the first covenant, translates the name Joshua (Yahshua) as Iesus (Jesus). And Joshua was a picture of Jesus leading God's people out of the world's controlling system (Egypt) and into the promised land of freedom and prosperity (Israel).
The significance of this is in the fact that Jesus is Yhvh (the ever existing God) tabernacled in human flesh. And He did this in order to save His people from their sins and lead them into a life of abundance (John 10:10),2 which you can learn more about when you read the Gospels.
