The Branch: A Plausible Case for the Substructure of the Four Gospels

By Preston T. Massey

The thesis of the book may be stated simply: it is an argument based upon the four prophetic texts of Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12; and Isa 4:2 as a foundational pattern for the four Gospels. These four prophetic texts, it will be argued, mention a King Branch, a Servant Branch, a Man/Priest Branch, and a Lord God Branch. This study seeks to show how Matthew presents Jesus as the King Branch, Mark as the Servant Branch, Luke as the Priest/Man Branch, and John as the Lord God Branch. Consideration will also be given to explore the ramification of the four living Beings as described in Rev 4:6-7. Given the sum total of this sequence of literary facts, the conclusion of this book will raise a number of possible implications. One of these implications will offer the conclusion that the four evangelists could not have written their four Gospels solely on their own human unaided efforts.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jul 24, 2018
• ISBN: 9781532642791

Preston T. Massey

Preston T. Massey has a PhD in Classics from Indiana University (2006). He currently is an adjunct professor in biblical studies at Indiana Wesleyan University, as well as pastor of Bethel Lane Community Church in Bloomington, Indiana. He has published numerous articles in academic journals around the world, including: Cambridge University's New Testament Studies, Brill's Novum Testamentum, South Africa's Neotestamentica, and Canada's Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism.

Book preview

9781532642777.kindle.jpg

The Branch

A Plausible Case for the Substructure of the Four Gospels

Preston T. Massey

50166.png

The Branch

A Plausible Case for the Substructure of the Four Gospels

Copyright © 2018 Preston T. Massey. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-4277-7

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-4278-4

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-4279-1

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Introduction

Chapter 1: A Plausible Case for Divine Revelation

Chapter 2: Disagreement in the Greco-Roman Literary Tradition and the Implications for Gospel Research118

Chapter 3: Minor Matters: Redaction, Allusions, Grids, and Silence

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Matthew: The King Branch

Chapter 5: The Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Mark: The Servant Branch

Chapter 7: The Absence of a Genealogy in Mark

Chapter 8: The Gospel of Luke: The Man/Priest Branch

Chapter 9: The Genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke

Chapter 10: The Gospel of John: The LORD God Branch

Chapter 11: Rev 4:6–7 and the Four Living Beings around the Throne

Chapter 12: Conclusion

Bibliography

I dedicate this book to the loving and grateful memory of my parents: John L. Massey (

1915

—

2004

) and Mildred Lorraine Massey (

1918

—

2011

).

Although neither lived to see the publication of this book, they both gave me great encouragement to write.

Acknowledgments

I

begin my indebtedness to

others by recalling my PhD days at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN. Although my degree comes from the Department of Classical Studies and not New Testament, my dissertation director, my Doktor Faktor, Prof. Timothy Long (now emeritus) was an invaluable help in my growth as a scholar. Prof. Long was willing to meet with me on a regular basis for two whole years while we read and translated some difficult German. His time and mentoring was a key help in building my confidence that I could actually read German. He also pushed me to develop a more scholarly prose style. I also feel indebted to Dr. Judith M. Lieu who, as editor of the Cambridge journal New Testament Studies in

2007

, escorted me through the process of getting my first article published.

Gratitude is hereby expressed to Dr. Everett Ferguson (also emeritus), from Abilene Christian University, who read chapter 2 and encouraged me to submit it for publication. On that note, I hereby also acknowledge appreciation to Dr. Craig S. Keener, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, who read chapter 2 as published in BBR and actually wrote me a nice letter of encouragement (not an email!).

For the kind and generous comments which appear on the back cover of this book, I wish to express deep appreciation to Dr. Craig A. Evans, professor at Houston Baptist University, and to Dr. David E. Garland, professor at Baylor University.

To the staff at Wipf & Stock, I desire to express great gratitude to the following: to Jim Tedrick, managing editor, for his wanting to publish this book; to Matt Wymer, assistant managing editor, for his answering my questions and giving me direction; to Shannon Carter, graphic designer, for her work in creating a fine front cover; and to Calvin Jaffarian, typesetter, for his patience and expertise in working with a rather challenging manuscript. Working with this staff exceeded all my expectations.

I would like to express heartfelt gratitude to my wife, Laura, for her many hours of reading through the entire manuscript and for giving me helpful feedback. I also want to thank my daughter, Melinda, a PhD student in English at Claremont Graduate University. Her suggestions regarding style improved the quality of several chapters. A friend, Nancy Shewmaker, deserves mention for reading the first three chapters and making helpful comments.

Finally, for their help in obtaining needed books, I would like to express gratitude to the library staff at Indiana Wesleyan University, in particular: Lynn Crawford, Mary Beth Dolmanet, Jessica O’Neal, and Jule Kind for carrier assistance.

Preston T. Massey

Bloomington, Indiana

12

December

2018

Abbreviations

AB The Aramaic Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

AC Acta Classica

AGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AnB Analecta Biblica

ANCTTBS Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Theology & Biblical Studies

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

ASBT Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology

ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research

ATR Anglican Theological Review

BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature

BAR Biblical Archaeological Review

BAT Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments

BBC Broadman Bible Commentary

BBR Bulletin of Biblical Research

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Loveniensium

Bib Biblica

BIS Biblical Interpretation Series

BJ Bellum judaicum

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BLS Bible and Literature Series

BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BRBS Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies

BRS Biblical Resource Series

BS Biblical Series

BSRLL Bulletin de la Société Royale des Lettres de Lund

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft Neutestament

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAT Commentaire de L’Ancien Testament

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBTSSup Classics in Biblical and Theological Studies Supplement Series

CEP Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives

CJAS Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series

CNT Companions to the New Testament

CO Christian Origins

COQG Christian Origins and the Question of God

CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism

CW Classical World

DSBS Daily Study Bible Series

DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

DSSCOL Dead Sea Scrolls & Christian Origins Library

ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary

EGT Expositor’s Greek Testament

ET English translation

EUS European University Studies

FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature

FPSJCO The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

FSCS Faith and Scholarship Colloquies Series

GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship

GNS Good News Studies

HAT Handkommentar Alten Testament

HeyJ Heythrop Journal

HTS Harvard Theological Studies

HTS/TS Hervormde Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies

HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

Int Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology

IRT Issues in Religion and Theology

ISBL Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of Evangelical Theological Society

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JQ The Jewish Quarterly

JR Journal of Religion

JSHJ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament

LCL Loeb Classical Library

LEC Library of Early Christianity

LHG&L Lexicon Historio-graphicum Graecum et Latinum

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies (formerly JSNTSup)

LSJ Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon with a Supplement

LXX Septuagint

MB Le Monde de la Bible

MHUC Monographs of the Hebrew Union College

MNTS McMaster New Testament Studies

MT Masoretic Text

NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary

NeoT Neotestamentica

NCBC The New Cambridge Bible Commentary

NGS New Gospel Studies

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIB New Interpreter’s Bible

NIBC New International Biblical Commentary

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIV New International Version

NIB New Interpreter’s Bible

NKS Neukirchener Studienbücher

NovT Novum Testamentum

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NTL New Testament Library

NTS New Testament Series

NTS New Testament Studies

NTT New Testament Theology

OBS Oxford Bible Series

OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary

OTG Old Testament Guides

PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs

PC Proclamation Commentaries

PG Patrologicia graeca

PGL Patristic Greek Lexicon

PRR Princeton Readings in Religions

PRS:SSS Perspectives in Religious Studies: Special Studies Series

PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series

PTS Perspectives in Religious Studies

PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece

RHPR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses

RILP Roehampton Institute London Papers

RLS Rockwell Lecture Series

RevQum Revue Qumran

SNGN Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative

SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLSCSS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series

SBLSBS Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study

SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SBTh Studia Biblica et Theologica

SCB Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SCK Studies in Classical Kinds

SJC Studies in Judaism and Christianity

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SLI Studies in the Literary Imagination

SNTS Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas

SNYW Studies of the New Testament and Its World

SP Studia Patristica

SR/SR Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses

SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity

SSJHC Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture

SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica

STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association

TB Theologische Beiträge

TC Tyndale Commentaries

TCB A Theological Commentary on the Bible

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TEG Traditio Exegetica Graeca

Tg Targum

TLJS The Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies

TP Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs

TPIC Trinity Press International Commentaries

TQ Theologische Quartalschrift

TRINJ Trinity Journal

TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum

TST Toronto Studies in Theology

TynB Tyndale Bulletin

VC Vigiliae christianae

VD Verbum domini

VE Vox evangelica

VT Vetus Testamentum

WBC Westminster Bible Companion

WBC Word Bible Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenshaft

ZST Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie

ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction

T

his book attempts to

answer the following questions:

Regarding the Four Gospels:

• Why do we have four canonical Gospels—not three, not five?

• Why do we have these four particular Gospels?

• Why do we have this particular order of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)?

• Why do Matthew and Luke have a genealogy?

• Why do Mark and John omit a genealogy?

Regarding the Four Branches

• Why do we have four Branches—not three, not five?

• Why do we have these four particular Branches (King Branch, Servant Branch, Man Branch, LORD God Branch)?

• Why does no Old Testament text ever speak of any of them as fulfilled?

• What connection, if any, do these Branches have in relationship with the Gospels?

Regarding the Four Living Beings around the Throne in Revelation 4.6–7:

• Why do we have four living Beings around the throne in Rev 4.6–7—not three, not five?

• Why is their order given specifically as first, second, third, and fourth?

• What relationship, if any, exists between the present order of the four Gospels and the order of the four living Beings?

• What is the total relationship, if any, between the four Gospels, the four Branches, and the four living Beings?

• Finally, what is the implication, if any, from the total constellation of four prophetic texts, four Gospels, and four living Beings?

The aim of this book is to provide a plausible explanation for the additional following question: upon what basis can we formulate the four images of Jesus in the Gospels as complementary and supplementary, rather than competitive or contradictory? International academic scholarship currently and typically dismisses revelation and inspiration as a possible causation behind biblical texts. One of the approaches taken up by such scholarship for dismissing Scripture as the Word of God is a strategy known as vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact). Simply stated, this approach argues that anything in the Gospels with a tint or tone suggesting the fulfillment of prophecy is merely a retrojected polemical statement placed in the mouth of a given speaker or writer after the fact. As the argument goes, even though a prophetic text forecasts and predicts an alleged future event, this text is disqualified as legitimate if cited by any of the four gospel writers. This attempt to project backward into the past statements of prophetic content thus enables scholars to disable and dispose of prophetic pronouncements as fictitious efforts to authenticate the gospel record.

Furthermore, this skeptical argument maintains that these texts are only later insertions read back into the record in order to justify a community presentation of Jesus.¹ In other words, this questionable claim bases its logic on a belief that the four evangelists simply created their Gospels by reading back into them OT prophecies after the fact. Thus current scholarly tendencies lean toward reading messianic statements as retrojected views of the early church placed in the mouth of Jesus or as statements alleging the fulfillment of events about Jesus.

These scholarly claims raise a question: how does one respond to the above objections? Given the current academic climate’s coolness toward the subject of revelation, I come at the topic indirectly. The thesis I am proposing bases the argument upon an underlying thematic unity of the fourfold Gospels. This unity-argument is grounded upon a coherent substructure tying together four prophetic texts from the Old Testament. The preliminary aim of this book is to provide a plausible explanation for the following questions: 1) why do the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have a genealogy but Mark and John do not; 2) why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke diverge; 3) why do we have four Gospels—not three or five; 4) why is the order of the current canon Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and 5) upon what basis can we formulate the four images of Jesus in the Gospels as complementary and supplementary, rather than competitive or contradictory? Ultimately and most importantly, this book is a defense of the divine inspiration of Scripture. In particular, it is a focused argument for the inspiration of the four Gospels.

Many individual studies of the four Gospels develop themes based upon the representation of Jesus in each respective Gospel as Matthew’s royal king, Mark’s servant, Luke’s human portrait, and the Johannine view of Jesus as God. To my knowledge, no one has presented a scholarly and critical argument showing the unified and coherent relationship between these disparate views. A canvass of scholarly literature turns up zero references.

The thesis of the book may be stated simply: it is an argument based upon the four prophetic texts of Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12; and Isa 4:2 as a foundational pattern for the four Gospels. This study seeks to show how, respectively, Matthew presents Jesus as the King Branch, Mark depicts Jesus as the Servant Branch, Luke portrays Jesus as the Man/Priest Branch, and John reveals Jesus as the LORD God Branch. Given this sequence of literary facts, the conclusion of this book proposes that the gospel writers could not have written vaticinium ex eventu.² Rather, these four gospel writers wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit so that the above four prophetic texts from the Old Testament, like the keel of a ship, provide supporting structure to the fourfold Gospel.

The self-imposed binding logic and the obligatory nature of Scripture require that these four Branches find fulfillment in Jesus in some way. Consequently, they must be fulfilled in either the first coming of Jesus or the second. If the first coming, there should be some definable way for discerning this compliance. From a canonical point of view, the integrity of Scripture is at stake; there is no other option available. This is the consistent position maintained by Jesus himself: Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), everything must be fulfilled or accomplished (Matt 5:18), and the Greek text of Luke 24:25–28 with its triple emphasis: everything (ἐπὶ πᾶσιν) that all the prophets spoke (ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν) in all the Scriptures (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γραφαῖς) regarding himself (τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ) must be fulfilled. Thus there are implications to the four prophetic texts of this investigation: were they ever fulfilled; is it important that they were fulfilled; what plausible reasons can we offer that they were fulfilled?

The specific proposal here is a hypothesis based upon the number four. The number four will be examined in its linkage to four prophetic statements containing the metaphor of Branch in biblical texts and the four canonical Gospels. Consideration will also be given to the four heavenly Images as found in Revelation 4:7. The argument thus sets out to demonstrate that this numerical phenomenon is too unusual to be brushed aside as mere human coincidence—or a fortuitous series of episodes.³ The thesis not only involves the number four but, concurrently, it explores a significant theological symmetry employed within this number. The analysis, therefore, will be based upon both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sources.

In order to validate this unified substructure, the investigation will utilize two principal criteria for advancing the plausibility case of the foregoing unity argument. First, the criterion of a fourfold attestation: do all four prophetic texts serve in the proposed substructure? This principle will be adopted in the following manner: all four prophetic texts must serve as a substructure, but each in a different way. If it can be established that one or more of the texts does not suitably fit as a background piece, the thesis will lose credibility. If it can be shown that one of the subtexts is clearly and substantially used for more than one Gospel, the thesis will be placed in doubt. This criterion requires that each prophetic subtext function in a singular and unrepeated manner. Two Gospels using the same subtext or two prophetic texts applying equally well to a single Gospel will break down the claim for uniqueness. A cognate objective will also focus upon answering the following subordinate questions: 1) does the proposed unity-substructure account for the various emphases in each of the four Gospels; 2) does this substructure explain omissions in a particular Gospel which is recorded in the others, and 3) does the proposed substructure help to resolve divergent accounts in the four Gospels?

Second, do the individual elements of each prophetic text find correspondence in a respective Gospel? This is an extension of the first criterion but with a narrower focus. If a substantial number of details of a prophetic subtext do not provide matching characteristics for the appropriate Gospel, the thesis will be weakened. Conversely is the opposite: if it can be shown that the individual details of each prophetic subtext do find a reasonable match in a respective Gospel, this should constitute probative evidence of a weighty nature. As an extension of the first criterion, its goal is to establish emphasis or singularity by means of detailed analysis. Overlapping is expected from one Gospel to another (especially in the synoptic tradition). But evidence of overlapping does not equal emphasis or cancel out its uniqueness. It is hoped that this second criterion will provide a check on the dangers of simplification.

Tangentially to the aforementioned is the intent to explain the unprecedented nature of a fourfold Gospel. These arguments will also be based upon the concept of plausibility rather than proof texting.⁴ Since there is no specific claim in any of the four Gospels making use of any of the proposed subtexts, proof is automatically eliminated; plausibility thus becomes the goal of this study. If the plausibility case as presented in this investigation can be established, then the subsequent challenge will be directed toward accounting for the cause that has generated the singular phenomenon of a fourfold Gospel. In other words, if a case for a unified substructure for the four Gospels can be established, what then is the implication of such a unity? This final stage of the investigation, deferred until the end, will be to explore the potential implications of a unified substructure as it relates to the issue of divine revelation.

1. See, for example, J. H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (

1988

)

153

: Can one be relatively certain that the passages brought forward from the New Testament are not the creations of the disciples’ proclamations after Easter?

2. For a defense of this after-the-fact proposition, see John Reumann in his Introduction to Hans Conzelmann’s Jesus (

1973

) x. For a rebuttal to such claims, see George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (

1974

)

141

and

177

.

3. Albert Schweitzer,The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (1968

)

7

. I borrow Schweitzer’s wording but intend a different application. Schweitzer must be credited, however, with recognizing a valuable truth: if the Gospels are products of random and happy chance, then it is hopeless to understand the principles behind their composition.

4. John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem, in The Four Gospels

1992

(

1992

)

93

: Since purely logical considerations do not resolve the Synoptic problem, the second issue—that of the plausibility of the editorial scenarios implied by each solution—becomes important. Here, clearly, we are dealing only in the realm of probability rather than ‘proofs’.

1

A Plausible Case for Divine Revelation

Among academics, the concept of divine revelation has fallen upon hard times. The past century was not kind to this viewpoint as an ever escalating number of scholars concluded that supernatural inspiration was indefensible. As a consequence, this increasingly larger coterie of academics has turned to issues of historicity, literary relationships both inside and outside the sacred text(s), and social backgrounds. ¹ Paul Tillich may serve as an entry point for the prevailing pessimism: The idea of revelation is a creation of Hellenistic philosophy. ² H. Richard Niebuhr, a Yale professor of theology and a representative voice from the 1940’s intellectual climate, weighed in from the American side with an even more dismal appraisal. After dubbing belief in revelation as fanciful, Niebuhr expanded his criticism into the following judgment: It seems to be a part of the general flight of a troubled generation to fairy-tales and historical romances. ³ Two representative quotations from the 1960s underscore a similar point. F. Gerald Downing claimed, The word ‘revelation’ is a source of great confusion. A theology based on it is inadequate for the exposition of the traditional faith of Christians. ⁴ In a similar vein, Emil Bruner referred to revelation as a scandal to the modern mind. ⁵ Moving into more recent times, J. J. M. Roberts pronounced a funeral oration over the subject of revelation suggesting not just a decline but a demise in biblical theology. ⁶ As if rendering a coroner’s verdict, his judgment placed the subject of revelation in the coffin of academic dead bones. More recently, William J. Abraham writes: If truth be told, the contemporary academy does not find the appeal to divine revelation at all attractive. Outside theology, and often within theology itself, the appeal to revelation is simply not permissible. ⁷ Most recently, Bart D. Ehrman has registered his own personal disillusionment with inspiration by advocating that Scripture is simply and purely a very human book. ⁸ Whether labeled as confusing, outdated, offensive, impossible, or impermissible, the concept of revelation is no longer considered relevant in theological discourse. ⁹ Thus, judging from the above selected examples, the academic study of Scripture for the past seventy-five years has been marinating in a sauce of humanistic ingredients. Although precise data may not be possible to determine, ¹⁰ there are exceptions to this consensus at the academic level. ¹¹

Probing into the Present State of Affairs: Dogmas and Dogmatics

For the benefit of some readers, it may be worthwhile to inquire into this state of affairs. Why has contemporary theology abandoned the discussion of divine inspiration? In short, the answer is that the claims of Scripture are no longer viewed as authoritative and, as a result, they cannot be used as decisive evidence in the forum of international scholarship. This objection may be summed up accordingly: the idea that Scripture makes a valid claim on its own behalf for its unique divine origin is no longer tenable; Scripture as a self-authenticating text is thus dismissed. Or, to state this otherwise: just because Scripture says something does not automatically make it true.¹² Furthermore, the self-witness of Scripture does not exempt such auto-proclamations from being studied critically as any other book. It is difficult, therefore, in today’s academic climate to argue that Scripture is divinely inspired—regardless of the Bible’s own particular claims.¹³ This means that no given biblical text can be accepted at face value; all must be interpreted in light of various scholarly disciplines. In fact, some would even argue that unless Scripture is corroborated elsewhere outside the sacred text, it is probably not true.¹⁴

In scholarly literature the theological concept of dogmatics is often introduced and set at odds with history.¹⁵ While dogmatics can be a sobriquet for a branch or discipline of study,¹⁶ it can also convey a sense of naïveté. In this sense, a dogma may represent something personally and subjectively believed in contrast to something objective or reasonable. Furthermore, dogmatic labels often end up being used like stickers to attach to a gullible person. For example, in the Hellenistic Greek tradition Polybius coined the term λαοδογματικός to describe people’s opinions or popular notions.¹⁷ The geographer Strabo made use of similar language to describe similar postures.¹⁸ The idea that inheres within the word is that of a simpleton who clings to strong opinions supported by little or no evidence. There is yet another use, not often mentioned in biblical studies, but apparent. A dogmatic attitude can describe a stubborn and unbudging position.¹⁹ Quite often, though, scholars using the term dogma may consciously present themselves as objectively innocent and bipartisanly neutral, when, in fact, such neutrality is impossible. Dogmatic agendas exist on both sides of the aisle. As Eric Lane Titus once said, It has always been one of the pitfalls of historico-critical research that there are hidden dogmatic interests.²⁰

From my own viewpoint, I consider the notion that Mary remained a virgin for all of her life an idea (or dogma) that is foreign to the biblical text and, therefore, an unreasonable claim. Yet, I consider the idea that Jesus was not born of a virgin also an unreasonable dogma, since that, too, is foreign to the biblical text. A case in point is Amand Puig i Tàrrech’s treatment of Mary in his recent Jesus: A Biography.²¹ While discussing the reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus as recorded in Mark 6:3, Tàrrech finds it difficult to believe that Mary had biological sons and daughters after the birth of Jesus. In other words, he believes that Mary remained a virgin for all of her married life. I would add only that a dogma such as the perpetual virginity of Mary is foreign to the biblical text while her virginity is not an alien and extraneous element. Admittedly, then, this delineation serves to highlight that the word dogma can be a handy tag to describe others. As already stated, a dogma can be used to describe an unreasonable or stubborn attitude that resists fresh information.²² Moreover, the pejorative use of the word usually results in the words dogma or dogmatic being employed to describe the unacceptable premise that reason must give way to the authority of Scripture.²³ As the skeptical argument goes, the theological cost of believing in divine revelation is purchased at the high price of forfeiting one’s personal autonomy.²⁴

The Influence of the Enlightenment

The erosion of confidence can be attributed to further antecedent causes. The impetus for this clashing view is generally traced back to the intellectual goal of the Enlightenment in which the scholar’s conscience is liberated and protected against the constraints of extraneous religious authority. Although his life has been variously assessed, the usual scapegoat for the avant-garde view of throwing off biblical authority and replacing it with faith in reason is David Hume. Hume essentially constructed the argument from Analogy by proposing that firm and unalterable experience is an established law and is, consequently, a proof against miracles.²⁵ The key concern that comes into view from an Enlightenment perspective is to allow the conscience the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads.²⁶ Writing in 1784, eight years after the death of David Hume and definitely living in his shadow, Immanuel Kant defined what that age understood by enlightenment:

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!—that is the motto of enlightenment.²⁷

A fair and more up to date description of this enlightened autonomy is provided by Jack Dean Kingsbury as he assesses how contemporary scholarship interprets Matthew 1.18–25:

Prior to the Enlightenment and rise of historical consciousness, the principal way in which commentators outlined the text was dogmatic in nature . . . . The focal theme of the text, therefore, is that of God’s fulfillment of ancient prophecy, and all parts of the text undergird this theme. With the coming of the Enlightenment and the rise of rationalism and then liberalism in the18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, commentators in droves forsook the dogmatic approach to 1:18–25 and replaced it with a radically historical approach.²⁸

The influence of the Enlightenment further develops into the discipline of historical criticism and this, in turn, results in the abandonment of divine inspiration as a valid subject for serious inquiry.²⁹ Bart Ehrman articulates the modern position of the critical historian:

Historians try to reconstruct what probably happened in the past on the basis of data that can be examined and evaluated by every interested observer of every persuasion. Access to these data does not depend on presuppositions or beliefs about God. This means that historians, as historians, have no privileged access to what happens in the supernatural realm; they have access only to what happens in this, our natural world. The historian’s conclusions should, in theory, be accessible and acceptable to everyone, whether the person is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, or anything else.³⁰

From these self-imposed limitations of the discipline, historians decline to investigate the supernatural as a possibility.³¹ This restricted view of history, however, is in many cases a post-Enlightenment development owing to the pressures of modern philosophical attitudes.³² In this viewpoint an impossible dichotomy exists between revelation and the discipline of historical inquiry. A parallel may be found in the 1990 movie Ghost, starring Patrick Swayze who plays Sam Wheat, and Demi Moore who plays Molly Jensen. In the movie, Sam is fatally shot on the streets of New York and then as a departed spirit he spends the rest of the story trying to make physical contact with his surviving lover. These two souls, however, exist in separate worlds and thus can never touch the world of the other. This analog illustrates the construct as built up by the principles of historical criticism; for some scholars, perhaps many, the topic of divine revelation is seemingly like the movie Ghost: one dimension is off-limits to the other. It is not clear to me how or why inspiration should be placed off limits for investigation when it is an essential element contained in the biblical record. Yet, such is the state of academic affairs on the subject.

Consequently, the purpose of this study is to reverse the implication of the movie metaphor. Since the NT does not categorize Jesus on the level of a ghost, this study will advocate that the discipline of history should be a search for understanding not only what happened but also the cause or causes behind particular events—regardless of causation.³³ The position adopted in this present study is actually an application of the Enlightenment principle of freedom but one which follows the evidence to an opposite conclusion. Hence, an attempt will be made to reseat the issue of revelation at the table of theological discussion.³⁴

The Analogy Argument

Another major reason for the modern rejection of the concept of biblical inspiration may be summed up and expressed by the word hostile. I use the word hostile here in the sense of something alien, foreign, and suspicious to normal human experience.³⁵ Philosophically, this hostility is expressed by the anti-term Analogy. Historical criticism defends this analogy-argument upon the basis that in order for a modern interpreter to accept anything as true from the ancient past, such an event must possess a corresponding analogy to present human experience.³⁶ If there is no analogy or correspondence, this event must be consigned to the status of a myth.³⁷ In such a model, scriptural expressions such as revelation come under immediate suspicion of being a vehicle or instrument for deceiving others, to exaggerate one’s own sense of importance, or to avoid responsibility for actions committed illegally.³⁸ In the third-century theological debate between Celsus and Origen, this is the salvo fired at Christians by Celsus who charges that Christians were deceiving the people by relying upon the argument that the OT is divinely inspired.³⁹ Present attitudes, therefore, are not restricted to our age; modern views have precedents in antiquity and they are connected to what can be known and experienced solely by means of what is characteristic of all humans. Thus, many of these modern attitudes are simply an old mannequin dressed up in a new skirt.

The Analogy-argument presumes that the supernatural must be rejected in light of a scientific attitude and in view of normal human experience.⁴⁰ This presupposition by Analogy,⁴¹ however, contains two major weaknesses. First of all, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for those who hold to this view to examine all the evidence. John Dominic Crossan’s assessment may illustrate the point:

First, it is important to emphasize clearly what my argument does not propose. It does not propose that history equals faith. It does not propose that history replaces faith. It does not propose that history creates faith. If two individuals saw and heard everything that the historical Jesus said and did in the first century, they could still respond like this. The one: he is a subversion of the Roman gods of law and order, he is dangerous and criminal; he should be executed. The other: he is an incarnation of the Jewish God of justice and righteousness, he is Messiah and Lord; he should be worshipped. The same applies to us today if we had a complete video tape of all that data. It would not be faith. It would not force faith. It would not guarantee faith. In other words, there can be history without faith. But, and this is the question, can there be faith without history?⁴²

Is Crossan saying that even if someone were to see a video tape of the resurrection of Jesus, this person would not believe? If such is the case, this is the dilemma of those who hold to the Analogy argument—whether living in the ancient world or the modern. Not even a video tape would persuade them. However, Crossan is correct on one point: it is true that there can be no faith without history.

Given the state of contemporary affairs on the subject of inspiration, discussion is difficult—perhaps for some impossible.⁴³ As acknowledged above, there is a certain polarizing power to the subject of divine inspiration. Nevertheless, this difficulty should not be construed as sufficient justification for the abdication of either belief in divine revelation or the discussion of its merits. Regrettably, however, under the self-imposed limitations of the Analogy argument, an unfortunate upshot is unavoidable: if the claim for the resurrection of Jesus is valid, there is no way to verify it when clinging to the Analogy presupposition. Hence, the supernatural remains a major flashpoint in biblical studies.

Secondly, this Analogy perspective assumes that everyone in the ancient world was of the same mythological mindset, with no powers of critical judgment, with no exceptions. This is most unfortunate as there are exceptions. A notable exception is the case of Hippocrates in his Airs, Waters, Places (22.5–13). In this text it is possible to observe an ancient author penetrating through the then prevailing superstitious belief that God was the cause of male impotency. Empirically, he draws the following logical conclusion:

Now the natives put the blame on God, and they reverence and worship its victims, fearful of being stricken by it themselves. I, too, think that these diseases are divine in nature as are all others and that no single phenomenon is more divine or more human than the others; but all are alike and all are divine. Each has its own nature, and none arises without its natural cause.

Hippocrates says that there is uniformity in nature and that this general uniformity permits no exceptions. In turn, this consistent method gives him a reliable tool for understanding the cause of disease. At 22.53, after concluding he has diagnosed the real cause of male impotency among the Scythians (horseback riding), Hippocrates says: But the truth is, as I said above, these affections are neither more nor less divine than any others, all and each are natural. This is an early scientific method at work. It contains observation and examination of the data at hand, followed by repetition, comparison, and confirmation. By adopting a scientific method, Hippocrates concludes that the affliction of male impotency arises from natural causes.

A further case in point is the moralist Plutarch. Although he is generally sympathetic to reports involving unusual phenomena, Plutarch does have limits. In his Numa (4.3), he expresses doubt that an immortal god can have intercourse with a human. Even more to the point, Plutarch actually states the view that virgins do not give birth to babies.⁴⁴ Furthermore, Plutarch affirms as very childish (παιδικὸν κομιδῇ) the belief that a god can inspire prophetic utterances.⁴⁵ Hippocrates and Plutarch are not alone; others possessed similar critical powers of judgment.⁴⁶

I cite three others who illustrate that the ancients were capable of a scientific point of view. Dionysius of Halicarnassus may be consulted as evidence that ancients could penetrate through myth to truth. In his Critical Essays: Thucydides (7), Dionysius is aware that an uncritical view of history can lead to deceiving the people. Among his examples of incredible and ignorant tales is the idea of the sexual union between mortals and gods.⁴⁷ Hence, the claim that naïve ancients could be duped by the story of a virgin birth because of their mythological view of reality does not stand up to the testimony of those ancients. Also among them is Justin Martyr who was of the understanding that a virgin birth falls clearly in the category of things considered impossible (ἀδύνατα).⁴⁸

Yet, the ancients did, in fact, report very unusual miracles or prodigies. This can be seen from both Greek and Roman historians. Appian in his Roman History: The Civil Wars (1. 83) describes mysterious terrors falling upon the people because of the chaos of war. Among these terrors was the report of a woman giving birth to a snake instead of a child. Appian does not question the report. He says simply that this was but one of many such prodigies occurring at that time (τέρατά τε πολλὰ ἐγίνοντο). Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his Roman Antiquities (1.67.1–2) reports that a marvelous sign (θαῦμα) is said to have occurred when the statues within a temple dedicated to Aeneas miraculously changed positions during the night. He apparently takes the report at face value. Even Plutarch in his Alexander (14.5) reports that a wooden image of Orpheus at Leibethra broke out in a profuse sweat when Alexander set out on one of his expeditions. Plutarch does not question the credibility of the account. Of course, Polybius (10.5.8; 9.2) categorically rejects any explanation of historical events due to supernatural causation. On the NT side, there are reports that the early disciples witnessed Jesus alive and resurrected after his death. The rationalist rejects both the secular and sacred accounts as fabulous fictions. Supernaturalists, however, reject the former secular accounts but accept the latter sacred accounts. What is the difference? It has to do with one’s view of Scripture, and one’s view of Scripture ultimately traces back to cause and result.

The text of Matt 1:18–24 presents the reader with a test case. This biblical event capsizes normal analogical experience and illustrates the above point.⁴⁹ Within the account itself, the description shows Mary either blinded by this mythological mist or, conversely, she is conniving to take advantage of it in order to cover up her sin. Joseph, however, is neither persuaded nor pigeonholed into the same box. He questions her version of events because he does not see an analogy. There is nothing in his experience that corresponds to her account of what allegedly has happened. In short, he does not believe in virgin births,⁵⁰ sees no analogy and, therefore, considers her unfaithful to him. According to Matthew, it takes an intervention from God to help Joseph overcome his worldview of natural law. Outside the account itself but within the mental world of Matthew, it may be questioned why he begins his Gospel with this inclusion of a doubting Joseph. If everyone in the ancient world was disposed to a mythological view of reality, why introduce a skeptical Joseph? Of course, it may be countered that this biblical narrative is simply a fictional disguise to mask the unpleasant truth of a promiscuous pregnancy.⁵¹ This criticism, however, does not stand up to scrutiny since Joseph is clearly described as rejecting Mary’s explanation for her conception. Initially, he thinks that he sees through the fabrication and concludes there is a legitimate basis for divorce. If this was meant to be taken as a genuine myth because people could extract some meaning from it, why involve Joseph as a foil in the narrative? If the account is a fiction, his presence does not simplify it with a plausible explanation but actually complicates the narrative.⁵² Why not simply allow Mary’s account to stand alone or, at least, present Joseph as naïvely accepting her story? The answer must be that Matthew’s Joseph is allowed to have a voice because he speaks for all who understand that virgins do not conceive without a male partner. In other words, Joseph does not operate in a symbolic world of ancient myth but, rather, thinks in accordance with a real world view identical to our own.⁵³ Joseph’s initial resistance is based upon his belief in the Analogy argument; his eventual acceptance of the pregnancy is based upon divine intervention—the only means available to him which would allow him to set aside his analogy preconceptions. The modern scholarly view that ancients, such as Joseph, could offer only a palliative diagnosis of the real situation does not accord with the facts.

The Questionable Case for Science

One of the more salient aspects of contemporary biblical scholarship and academic publishing is the claim to be scientific. It is very common to read the word scientific as applied to NT studies.⁵⁴ The word scientific presumes a claim to a certain objectivity which precludes the supernatural.⁵⁵ The assumption is that something scientific protects objective study from exaggerated one-sided theological enthusiasm. Consequently, the word scientific may serve as a catchword for dismissing the idea of the supernatural.⁵⁶ It is clearly not scientific for a substantial number of scholars to view Jesus in any transcendent manner.⁵⁷ To be sure, Jesus is placed on a human pedestal as an individual of remarkable influence, but he is not viewed in categories that defy human understanding.⁵⁸ Additionally, the word can leave the impression that historical research is conducted in the same manner as a genuine scientific methodology with similar precisely measured results.⁵⁹ This is most unfortunate.⁶⁰ In its purest form, scientific investigation implies research under carefully controlled conditions that can be subjected to repeated testing, rigorous scrutiny, and independent corroboration.⁶¹ Investigation into the past cannot measure up to such demanding standards.⁶² When applied to biblical research and writing, the word scientific is thus a misnomer.⁶³ To state this in stronger language: the word scientific has actually been hijacked from the laboratory of hard science and misapplied to literary studies in which the principal workplace is the library.⁶⁴ Alex Berezow, holder of a PhD in microbiology and editor of the journal Real Clear Science, states this well: Dressing up one’s personal ideology in the language of science is an affront to the scientific method.⁶⁵

A better case can be made for encapsulating the practice of NT research by means of the word objective,⁶⁶ although this term, too, has been questioned as unrealistic and inappropriate.⁶⁷ In fact, at the 1984 SBL Seminar, Irvin W. Batdorf called for dispensing with the term altogether because objectivity is unattainable in biblical studies.⁶⁸ To be sure, William R. Farmer has labeled the results of so-called scientific research as unintelligible.⁶⁹ A much more suitable word, and perhaps less pretentious, to capture the essence of NT scholarship is either the word specialist or the term technical. These two words do not require that the bar of truth be set at either the scientific or objective level; they also allow the fact that scholarship is often personal, subjective, and far from truth—yet technical and complex. A simple return to the word critical as adopted by the ICC would also be suitable.⁷⁰

The one supporting prop that a pseudo-scientific perspective leans upon is the conception that since we do not witness, for example, either a virgin birth or a resurrection from the dead taking place right now, this leads to the conclusion that such events have never taken place in history. History is thus considered to be a closed and sealed system, not permitting an exception to its physical laws, and not admitting the possibility that God has acted supernaturally in history.⁷¹ This is an extension of the argument by Analogy and is also an old view, having roots in the ancient past. A contemporary case in point is the recent book by James D. Tabor in which he argues the following a priori view:

Historians are bound by their discipline to work within the parameters of a scientific view of reality. Women do not get pregnant without a male—ever. So Jesus had a human father, whether we can identify him or not. Dead bodies don’t rise—not if one is clinically dead—as Jesus surely was after Roman crucifixion and three days in a tomb. So if the tomb was empty the historical conclusion is simple—Jesus’ body was moved by someone and likely reburied in another location.⁷²

The claim for a bodily resurrection is absolutely unique and unequivocally defies all the known laws of nature. If we could see bodily resurrections taking place all the time (and thereby conform to natural law and satisfy the demands of Analogy), the commonality of such occurrences would render the uniqueness of the NT claim frivolous and inconsequential. Efforts to reduce Jesus to the status of a non-unique character and fully compatible with natural law are not convincing.⁷³ It is the singularity of the Jesus-event that gives the resurrection its unique quality, its troublesome and stunning significance, and its enduring transforming power. The response, as recorded in the book of Acts, reveals first-century attitudes toward the claim for a resurrection as on the same emotional and philosophical footing as today’s unbelief. That is, the narrative of Acts chronicles the reaction of first-century unbelief based upon much the same principles as modern unbelief, indicating a similar if not identical world view. Claiming that the discipline of historical investigation cannot consider the evidence for resurrection is an arbitrary decision. The resurrection of Jesus can be investigated just like any other historic event in the past.⁷⁴ Although there is no eye-witness testimony in the NT claiming to have seen the resurrection at the moment of its actual occurrence, this does not mean that the NT is speaking of something invisible, wholly based upon imagination, and, therefore, incapable of investigation. Similarly, it is granted that divine revelation is humanly impossible and cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory experiment under controlled conditions. This is not to claim, however, that something supernaturally revealed is not open to critical investigation and rational analysis or that it cannot be supported by rational analysis.⁷⁵ Reason may be elevated above revelation or subjected to it, but there is no inherent contradiction between reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not necessarily arch rivals. Belief in revelation, therefore, is not irrational. Admittedly, an objection to the subject of divine revelation is that it inserts into the Analogy argument a polarizing influence.⁷⁶ As is peculiar to the nature of legitimate debate, there are two sides; resistance should be expected.⁷⁷ In tug-of-war fashion, scholars on both sides of the question strain to pull back the other side. For example, years ago Wilhelm Pauck claimed: It is a fact that the supernatural authority of old theology is dead. The miracles of God’s personal appearance in Jesus Christ and of the divine inspiration of the Bible are dead.⁷⁸ Yet E. Earle Ellis has claimed with equal conviction that historical criticism of the Bible is a failure and bankrupt.⁷⁹

The skeptical side in the debate does not hesitate to make known its views. It is appropriate and natural that the believing side should do no less. Accordingly, although liberal scholarship has consigned the subject of divine revelation to the status of being on life support or in preparation for burial, perhaps the time has come for rehabilitating an old subject by proposing a new approach.

In an attempt to not only revive interest in a moribund subject but also to present a counter argument to current academic constructs,⁸⁰ my intention is to present an approach which shows the plausible reasons that the four Gospels are on a unique and supernatural level. This book takes its place among other current scholarly monographs which argue for transcendence in the person of Jesus.⁸¹ Thus, this study ultimately will attempt to understand the canonical Scriptures on their own terms.

The Argument for a Plausible Case

In order to take into consideration skeptical views, both ancient and modern, and to address some issues that have been neglected, unexplored, or unsuspected, I will develop a case for inspiration based upon the concept of plausibility. The word plausibility, first of all, has its roots and origin among ancient historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and their successors. An example of the principle of plausibility at work among in an ancient writer is that of Strabo in his Geography in which he uses two of his favorite words for plausibility (πιθανότης and εἰκός) and then follows this up with a series of eight investigative questions, all with the word how (πῶς or tίς).⁸² The search for what is plausible is a quest for the probable cause of how something has happened. The concept of plausibility is intrinsically linked to reasonable explanations. However, I do not equate reasonable solely with what is natural. A further ancient model is that of Aristotle in his Poetics. At 1451a/12.1, he twice uses the expression κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον (according to probability or necessity) in order to describe a proper sequence of events that likely could have happened. This is the probable part. The element of necessity or inevitability is the second part, and requires a proper explanation for this sequence. My intention is to adapt Aristotle’s model but with a reverse twist in order to demonstrate the implausibility of the four Gospels as having their origin in a purely human causation.

This term, along with its companion term hypothesis, provides scholars the acceptable language for doing research and sharing their results with others.⁸³ These two terms convey the temporary nature of academic consensus as well as a measured modesty in not claiming to know all truth. This approach eliminates any claim for fail-safe or foolproof results.⁸⁴ Thomas Korteweg adds to this: the only way for a hypothesis to prove its value is by explaining in the most convincing manner the facts that present themselves, without at the same time being seriously contradicted by those that it fails to account for.⁸⁵ Therefore, I follow current NT scholarly conventions by pursuing the goal of what is plausible. I adopt and make use of the same understanding of plausible as do Theissen and Winter: "Plausible, from the Latin plausibilis (also related to the English word ‘applause’) means ‘deserving applause,’ and may be defined or paraphrased by the English words ‘illuminating, understandable, credible, sound, well-founded, convincing’."⁸⁶

At no point along the way in this study will the concept of inspiration be granted as a fact;⁸⁷ the idea of inspiration will be presented as a thesis whose verisimilitude must be established. The burden of proof will rest upon establishing the concept of inspiration as the probable cause behind the four Gospels. A concomitant objective of not denying or explaining away evidence that appears contrary to the thesis of this study will trailer the primary pursuit for plausible evidence. Possible alternative rivals to the thesis of this study will be mentioned but kept to a minimum. The focus will be upon laying down the lines of evidence for divine inspiration rather than exploring every competing idea.

Those who are comfortable with the idea of some form of divine inspiration and desire to communicate with those outside this circle are forced to find footing that relies upon supports that do not build upon the premise that something is true simply because the authors of Scripture make a claim for it. For example, a frequent complaint lodged against the four evangelists is that they simply tailored their Gospels to fill out the categories. In a recent BAR article this is the conclusion reached by Sean Freyne.⁸⁸ A. N. Wilson makes a similar claim when he states that Matthew has been through the Scriptures cheerfully lifting details, and then inventing the ‘facts’ to fit the ‘prophecies’.⁸⁹ In other words, the skeptical claim bases its logic on a belief that the four evangelists simply created their Gospels by reading back into them OT prophecies after the fact.⁹⁰ Craig A. Evans voices a similar view: I believe that the passion predictions were not made prior to entry into Jerusalem. The Markan evangelist has retrojected them into Jesus’ Galilean ministry (Mark 8.31; 9.12) and journey south for literary and theological reasons.⁹¹ Alan F. Segal operates on a similar parallel principle: "For a fact about Jesus to be accepted as unassailable, it must not be in the interest of the church to tell us.⁹² Since the church" cannot be trusted, according to the prevailing academic view, it remains for critical scholarship to discover what can be trusted through the principles of historical criticism. Because of the current academic climate, I must take into account the lingering suspicion that the evangelists may have retrospectively tailored their accounts to conform to OT predictive statements. This skepticism has forced me to approach the subject from a different point of view. Essentially, the task will be to demonstrate that the four evangelists do not consciously and deliberately compose their respective accounts in order to match the fourfold view as presented here. A quick acknowledgment is in order: it is no stunning proposal to argue that some predictive statements found in the Gospels were made after the fact. However, the suggestion that Jesus never predicted his own death seems more fictional than factual. Yet, the always present question is: are these predictive/fulfillment statements wild fabrications and gross misrepresentations of both the OT and the life of Jesus; or, conversely, are these statements legitimate, truthful, and accurate accounts? For those statements that reasonably appear to be later post event observations by the evangelists, one still has to arrive at some personal conclusion as to how they made those observations.⁹³ My own view is that these understandings go back to Jesus or the Holy Spirit as the original source.⁹⁴

A disclaimer is appropriate. This investigation will not explore the following three current scholarly issues. First, the need to inquire into a speculative source such as Q (from the German word Quelle, source) will not be entertained.⁹⁵ Inasmuch as no Q document has ever been discovered and consequently suffers in that it is heavily weighted with speculation, its current role in modern research will be left out of this study.⁹⁶ Indeed, Robert Kysar now claims that Q is a skyscraper built upon the end of a toothpick.⁹⁷ Regarding Q, therefore, this investigation will not pursue the fictional notion of Q.

Second, the human experience of reflection and imagination is also omitted from this study. This is not to suggest, though, that the evangelists lacked such capacity or that they did not make use of it. It is only to propose that reflection does not provide a fully sufficient explanation for the origin of the four Gospels.⁹⁸ Consequently, I do not see the four Gospels as a development due to reflection as if each Gospel represented a different stage along the way to a step-by-step sequence of R1, R2, R3, finally culminating in R4.⁹⁹

Third, the human explanation of memory will not be explored.¹⁰⁰ James D.G. Dunn, a strong advocate of the role of memory in oral tradition, says:

For the prevailing characteristic of oral tradition is its flexibility. The same stories are retold with seemingly endless variation; the substance or core of the story is stable, but the detail can vary with each telling. The same teaching is repeated in seemingly endless permutations and combinations, with varying emphases presumably deemed appropriate to the differing circumstances in which performance of the tradition takes place.¹⁰¹

I have no objections to Dunn’s understanding of memory and oral tradition. Obviously, Jesus was remembered in various ways during the first twenty or thirty years. However, I do not believe that oral tradition preserved by memory is an adequate accounting for the fourfold portrait of Jesus. People can remember certain events of the vividly or intensely experienced past. For example, those who lived through the bombing of England during WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, the assassination of JFK in November