Why This Book Was Formulated

INTRODUCTION pp. xvii - xx

Twenty one years ago I delved into a personal study of how the order of events surrounding the miracles and parables associated within the texts of the four Gospels specifically and successively related to each other. This study also included verifying the actual length of Jesus’ ministry. After completing the initial framework of these findings, I realized others would be interested too. This I completed by the end of 1985, and entitled the original manuscript, The Forty-Two Miracles of Jesus Christ.

From the first instance, I embarked on the task in a tremendous mood of enthusiasm and excitement, and as I saw a pattern and plan developing in the way everything in the four Gospels related to each other, became even more excited. With the initial thrill of these original findings, I rushed to get them onto paper. In so doing, I did not take time to consider some of the critical arguments relating to certain prevalent factors in modern scholarship up to that date. Though subsequently this did not alter any of the main original findings and initial exegesis.

However, while trying to get the manuscript published in its existing form, I was led to send it to an expert in New Testament Studies, Dr. Philip Seddon, of Selly Oak Colleges in Birmingham, who found it - as written in his reply, “interesting, fascinating and thought provoking.” He suggested if I could not get it published as it stood, I should consider enlarging on it and take into consideration relevant critical scholarship. In so doing, he also put me in touch with a John Wenham (a respected scholar of the harmonistic critical approach) of Wycliffe Hall, at Oxford University, and some of his books relating to the subject.

Taking his advice, I consequently decided to include and examine the entire texts of the four Gospels (instead of just from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and up to the crucifixion). Realizing what was needed was as it were - a ‘Gospel’ of the four Gospels. In other words, one complete Gospel, with the combined texts of the events of the four systematically placed in the successive order (as I had come to see), to which they were naturally relating to, so that the reader could clearly peruse the whole and complete scenario of the dialogue unfolding as it had subsequently occurred, and without any of the so-called contradictions associated with the explanations regarding the critical arguments of the text that certain scholars hold in question.

Of course over the centuries of time, various works on the happenings of the Gospels have found their way onto the shelves of our libraries and into the homes of those particularly interested in the subject. Moreover, certain aspects of it have become intrinsically enshrined within our religious circles, including various factors inherent to our culture. For instance, one such factor was the establishment of our calendar, relating to the calculation of the year we find ourselves in, which consequently became known as AD - 2000 years since Jesus’ birth. Other instances of this influence can even be found in numerous expressions associated within the very idiom of our language. Furthermore, if we pause and consider for a moment, especially the older generation, could no doubt point to several straight away. Even though, this influence has been profound throughout our history, most of the time we are not aware of these factors, when busy with life’s other preoccupations.

Over the centuries then, this profound influence came initially through word of mouth, after which the important aspects of it were written down by hand, and later subsequently even portrayed through art, architecture, and, eventually the printed word. In this recent age of electronic gadgets and wizardry, aspects of the Gospels and its teachings are still promulgated, though now through the reproduction of sound recordings, including the invention of the moving picture, and the Web.

But in spite of the, various arguments cognisant to the aspects relating to this sometimes puzzling and controversial subject - nevertheless, it is basically and generally accepted by many of our people, and especially the older, and has become part of our very Establishment. However, as far as the younger generation goes, many take little interest in the subject, and are certainly as a whole bemused by the historical and technical side of it.

Consequently, one of the main reasons for this is, generally speaking it has not been made particularly interesting or significantly easy to understand, and thus, is without any specific relevance to those born in the later years of this modern age. Additionally, many of our critical scholars believe there are blatant contradictions in the records of the Gospels, and when it comes to the problem of the miraculous aspect, cannot accept such things anyhow. Subsequently, this has resulted in the proper explanation of the subject being rationalized away, through certain books and TV documentaries, which in turn gave rise to an attitude of complete scepticism regarding any authenticity relating to the subject amongst those who would reflect on the concepts associated within its pages. Especially those surrounding the consideration, of whether the birth of our universe and the subsequent other happenings since, associated with life itself, were just a blind occurrence of chance, or whether it was set in motion by special design, as depicted in the beginning verses of the fourth and concluding Gospel.

Because of this nebulous spirit associated with much of the scenario regarding the works on the four Gospels - which feed the ideas relating to our aspirations on the subject - it should not be thought strange if many our young people then view the whole content (and even its aesthetical teachings) with some scepticism, when it comes to identifying any notion of a God and the concept of any benefit from reading the four books of the Gospels. Ironically, many of the very scholars whose word on the subject we can only take as ‘gospel’ so to speak are not in agreement or any closer now than they were a hundred years ago. Thus the importance attached to its teachings is placed at a low level.

This naturally results in a feed-back to the rest of the clergy, who predominantly represent the subject to our peoples (and especially to the young) as a somewhat ambiguous concept, which they are not able to market more successfully in getting across any worthwhile and wholesome ideas associated with its aesthetical values and historical basics in answer to questions that naturally come up with the subject.

Interestingly enough, this is highlighted through the words of John Wenham in his book, Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke (Hodder & Stoughton), where this dilemma is addressed in his introduction, “In 1979 I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years’ work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue” (p. xxi).

He further mentions this dilemma in his book the Easter Enigma (Paternoster Press), saying, “Forced harmonizing is worthless. The tendency today, however, is the opposite - to force the New Testament writings into disharmony, in order to emphasize their individuality. The current analytical approach to the Gospels often has the effect of making scholars more and more uncertain at more points, till eventually their view of Jesus and his teaching is lost in a haze. The harmonistic approach, on the other hand, enables one to ponder long and conscientiously over every detail of the narrative and to see how one account illuminates and modifies another. Gradually (without fudging) people and events take shape and grow in solidity and the scenes come to life in one’s mind. Such study is beautifully constructive and helps vindicate the presuppositions on which it is based. It is sad and strange when immense learning leads to little knowledge of the person studied” (p. 128).

So, when it comes to these basic events in the Gospels, scholars are still in much confusion, leaving question marks, arguments, and statements of contradictions, when comparing the books available on the subject. John Wenham’s works are based on a better approach, which has the basis of a proper rationalized harmonistic foundation, it is with this harmonistic approach that I also proceeded, even though at the time of my first manuscript I was not aware of John Wenham and his works.

Hence, this, particular formulation of the four Gospels into one complete whole, with the given explanations of the text in question, including a complete Scripture Graph Appendix, is an attempt to give the answer to the age-old problem of the natural synchronization of the successive events in the four Gospels, without any of the so-called contradictions. Thus, producing an entirely new work - for those who are seeking answers to some of the seemingly perplex anomalous questions that people interested in this field have halted at. Consequently, and hopefully, therefore, it will give the subject the proper credence it had from its original conception, when these miraculous events were first written down. Moreover, it will create one natural flowing Gospel, in combing the four, but, at the same time, not take anything away from the importance of the individuality of each of the authors and their separate books.

As mentioned at the start of this introduction, when studying the Gospels in my first attempt to completely synchronize the four texts, I found that there were actually 42 miracles from the time when Jesus embarked on His ministry. Which subsequently, concluded with the healing of Malchus’ ear, just prior to the crucifixion. Directly after completing this, I planned a follow-up, dealing with the Crucifixion, the Passover events and the Resurrection, and concluding with the Ascension. However, as mentioned earlier, I decided after much reconsideration and advice, to also include the very beginning of the texts of the four Gospels as well, in the rewriting of my original manuscript.