Chronological Harmony of Events of J

The Harmony of Chronological Progression between the Gospel Writers

Introduction: Before setting out the timeline of all chronological events reported in all of the Gospels, which are pertinent towards the examination of the genuineness of the Talmud of Jmmanuel, a brief explanation will begiven to explain how the grand chronological sequence of all reported events is derived. Let's say there are three events recorded by a writer which will be designated as A, B, and C. If the writer is truthful and records the events as "First A, then B, then C," one must conclude that the events are in chronological sequence by the "then" and "then." "Then" is only one choice of a transition which necessitates a forward progression of time between reported events.Therefore, if a transition which implies forward progression such as"then" is used, the transition stands as a possible limit for the chronological progression of all recorded events by all authors. In other words, in the case of "first A, then B," event A must have occurred no later than event B. This limit requires that B occurred after A, and unless another author also uses language to provide an earlier limit for some other event X that can fit between A and B, B stands as the next recorded event on the grand timeline of all reported events. Now, if an author records events as "First A, then B, when C," one cannot conclude that C necessarily falls in chronological sequence after B because "when" is a time indicator, just one of many possible time indicators, that may or may not be directing the reader to some other time period other than one which falls next in time in relation to the previously reported event.

To explain time indicators in more detail, consider the following example:

When J had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him. When J had come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever. When J got into a boat, his disciples followed Him.

In the above example, the three phrases “when J had entered Capernaum,” “when J had come into Peter’s house,” and “when J got into a boat” are all time indicators showing at what time the details which follow after these phrases occurred. Other such phrases that would act as time indicators in the same way that the former phrases do would be “As J was entering Capernaum, a centurion came to him” or “coming into Peter’s house, he saw…” or “after J got into a boat, his disciples followed…,” etc. Now, looking at the first example, this is what one can conclusively say, based on the time indicating phrases that were used:

A centurion came to J shortly after or during the time that J had entered Capernaum.
J saw Peter’s wife’s mother shortly after or during the time that J entered into Peter’s house.
J’s disciples followed J shortly after or during the time that J got into a boat.

Here is what one CANNOT conclusively say, based on the time indicators that have been used, even though many might ASSUME this:

J came into Peter’s house after J had entered Capernaum and healed the centurion's servant.
J got into a boat after J had come into Peter’s house which was also after J had entered Capernaum and healed the centurion's servant.

One might assume this because these events are reported in this order, but what if the following details are added to the statements?:

When J had entered Capernaum on J’s third visit to Capernaum, a centurion came to him.
When J had come into Peter’s house on J’s first visit to Capernaum, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.
When J got into a boat long after his third visit to Capernaum, his disciples followed Him.

(All of these added details agree with the grand sequence that will be later revealed concerning the chronological sequence of all reported events of the life of J)

These additional details did not need to be added in order for the previously reported events not to have been reported in chronological order in the first place. However, with these details added, now one knows for certain that the first two events were NOT reported in chronological order in relation to each other. This is what is meant when it is said that time indicators which are found between two events do not necessitate forward progression of time between the two reported events. One can only conclude that the events tied to the particular time indicator occurred at or near the time of the specific time indicator, but one cannot conclude that the event separated by a time indicator which follows a previously reported event occurred necessarily next or later in chronological sequence than the event priorly reported. One would hope, however, that if a writer intentionally listed events out of chronological order that a purpose in doing so would be made evident, which we will see later is the case with Matthew’s report, which has events reported in the exact same order as the Talmud of Jmmanuel.

Now, going back to the first example, if a writer ever reports "first A, then B, when C," the context as well as other reports must be examined to determine the location of event C on the timeline. Again, "when" or some other time indicator cannot necessarily be used to limit the progression of event B or necessitate that event C occurs next in chronology on the grand timeline of all reported events. Therefore, other limits that have been set by other authors in their reports must be used to place event C on the grand sequence.

Now, at any time during this outline of the chronological sequence of events, one might feel free to say to themselves that all or some of the authors were just lying or misinformed when they used language which either required chronological progression or reference to some other time period. But if one wants to say that these authors were either lying or misinformed on just the matters of chronological progression, they must determine for themselves the likelihood of how lies or misinformations could have masterfully left behind a trail of a chronological sequence of all reported events without contradicting each other. When it is said that the writers never contradict each other, this means that there is never a time when a writer necessarily places an event in a wrong time period in relation to where other writers place the same event, at least among the 4 gospel writers, excluding the TJ. Here, then, is the pertinent sequence of events of the Galilean Ministry of J that will be used to determine whether theTalmud of Jmmanuel fits into and agrees with the sequence or else contradicts the sequence. This is important if we are to believe that its author lived with, walked with, and talked with J, which would have allowed him to know of the sequence of these events better than any who were not alive at that time. The reason why an event falls next in chronological sequence on the grand timeline will be given for each event. Unless noted, all quotations come from the New King James Version of the Bible.

All Reported Events between the Four Gospels Writers Beginning from J's Departure from Samaria into Galilee until Herod Hearing of J.

1. The Healing of the Nobleman's Son (JN 4:46-54)
Reason: John is the one who specifically mentions J leaving Judea for his many events that will occur in Galilee. After making it through Samaria, he then arrives in Galilee (v. 43). The "and there was" of verse 46 shows that the nobleman met J after he entered. John then makes the bold statement "this is the second sign J did when he had come out of Judea into Galilee. John's "after this there was a feast of the Jews" sets a later limit than what Luke's report reveals to come next.

2. J's First Rejection at Nazareth (LK 4:16-30)
Reason: John brought us here. Luke's "so he came to Nazareth" of verse 16 shows forward progression from the previous verses 14-15 which showed J's entrance into Galilee where John reported J's second sign. The "then he went down to Capernaum" of verse 31 limits the progression of this event to before the entrance into Capernaum. Matthew, however, provides us an earlier event than Luke 4:31-37.

3. J Moves to Capernaum (MT 4:13-17)
Reason: Luke brought us here. The time indicator of "and leaving Nazareth" of verse 13 shows progression from Luke's reported Nazareth event, the first rejection by Nazareth of J. J then dwells in Capernaum in agreement with Luke. The "and J, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw" of verse 18 limits the progression of this event to before the seeing of the two brothers.

4. Four Become Fishers of Men (MT 4:18-22; MK 1:16-20; LK 5:1-11)
Reason: Matthew brought us here. The "and as he walked by the Sea ofGalilee he saw" of MK 1:16 progresses forward in agreement with Matthew. Mark's "then they went to Capernaum" of verse 21 limits the progression of this event to the 1st visit to Capernaum after the 4 are called. Matthew's "and J went about" of verse 23 is a later limit than Mark's so Mark's limit has priority. The "on one occasion, while the crowd was pressing" of LK 5:1 (ESV) is a time indicator showing that Luke has reverted back to this event in his narrative.

5. The Demoniac is Healed on the Sabbath Day (MK 1:21-28; LK 4:31-37)
Reason: Mark brought us here. Mark's "now as soon as they came out of the synagogue" of verse 29 is a very specific limitation of the progression of this event to before Peter's mother-in-law and others being healed. Luke's "then he went to Capernaum" of verse 31 agrees with Mark's progression. Luke's "now he arose from the synagogue" of verse 38 agrees with Mark's limit.

6. Peter's Mother-in-Law Plus Others are Healed (MT 8: 14-18; MK1:29-34; LK 4: 38-41)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Mark's "now as soon as they had come out of the synagogue" of verse 29 states the immediacy of this event after the prior in a very bold manner. Mark's "now in the morning" of verse 35 limits the progression of this event to before the first preaching tour of Galilee. Luke's "now he arose from the synagogue and entered Simon's house" of verse 38 shares in Mark's boldness. Luke's "now when it was day" of verse 42 agrees with Mark's limit. Matthew's "now when J had come into Peter's house" of verse 14 is a time indicator showing that Matthew has reverted back to this event in his narrative.

7. First Preaching Tour of Galilee (MT 4:23-25; MK 1:35-39; LK 4:42-44)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Matthew's "and J went aboutall Galilee" brings Matthew up to this point from the calling of the 4 in his narrative. Mark's "now a leper came to him" of verse 40 limits the progression of this event to J's cleansing of a leper. Luke's "on one occasion, while the crowd was pressing" (ESV) of chapter 5 and verse 1 is a time indicator which cannot necessarily limit progression. Plus, this event has already been used by Luke.

8. A Leper is Healed in Galilee (MT 8:1-4; MK 1:40-45; LK 5:12-16)
Reason: Mark brought us here. Mark's "and again he entered Capernaum after some days" of chapter 2 verse 1 limits the progression of this event to before J's healing of the paralytic. Luke's "and it happened when he was in a certain city" of verse 12 is a time indicator showing that Luke is reverting back to this event. Luke's "now it happened on a certain day, as he was teaching" of verse 17 agrees with Mark's limit. Note: the "and behold" of Matthew separates the healing of the leper from the giving of the beatitudes without determining progression. The absence of time indication as well as the absence ofMatthew's leper spreading abroad what J did makes it uncertain as to whether MT 8:1-4 is reverting back to this event or reporting a different leper's cleansing. Both are possible without creating a contradiction.

9. A Paralytic is Healed (MT 9:2-8; MK 2:1-12; LK 5:17-26)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Mark's "then he went out again by the sea" of verse 13 limits the progression of this event to before Matthew's call. Luke's "after these things he went out and saw a tax collector" of verse 27 agrees with Mark's limit. Matthew's "and behold" (ESV) of verse 2 separates the scene from the one previously reported without indicating progression. The comparison of details inMatthew 9:1-13 to Mark and Luke makes it certain that Matthew has reverted back to this event in his narrative. This, then, is J's second visit to Capernaum after the 4 were called.

10. Matthew's Call and Reception is Held (MT 9:9-13; MK 2:13-17; LK 5:27-32)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Mark's "then they came and said to him" of verse 18 sets a limit before J being questioned about fasting. Luke's "then they said" of verse 33 agrees with Mark's limit. Matthew's "then the disciples of John came to him saying" of verse 14 is a later limit than Mark and Luke's, which have priority.

11. Scribes and Pharisees Inquire about Fasting (MK 2:18-22; LK 5:33-39)
Reason: Mark, and Luke brought us here. Mark's "now it happened that he went through the grain fields" of verse 23 sets a limit before the plucking of the grain on the Sabbath. Luke's "now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first" of chapter 6 verse 1 agrees with Mark's limit and is much more specific.

12. J Goes to Jerusalem for Second Passover and Heals a Lame Man (John 5:1-47)
Reason: Luke's specific time indicator of Luke 6:1 reveals where John has progressed to in his narrative. John's "after these things" in chapter 6 and verse 1 sets a much later limit than the ones already set by Mark and Luke which, therefore, have priority.
[One Author Writes: But in Luke (Luke 6:1) we have a still more definite note of time, if we could be certain of the meaning of the peculiar term which he employs to express it "It came to pass (he says) on the sabbath, which was the first-second," for that is the proper rendering of the word, and not "the second sabbath after the first," as in our version. Of the various conjectures what this may mean, that of SCALIGER is the most approved, and, as we think, the freest from difficulty, namely, the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover; that is, the first of the seven sabbaths which were to be reckoned from the second day of the Passover, which was itself a sabbath, until the next feast, the feast of Pentecost (Leviticus 23:15,16, Deuteronomy 16:9,10) In this case, the day meant by the Evangelist is the first of those seven sabbaths intervening between Passover and Pentecost. And if we are right in regarding the "feast" mentioned in John 5:1 as a Passover, and consequently the second during our Lord's public ministry plucking of the ears of corn must have occurred immediately after the scene and the discourse recorded in John 5:19-47, which, doubtless, would induce our Lord to hasten His departure for the north, to avoid the wrath of the Pharisees, which He had kindled at Jerusalem. Here, accordingly, we find Him in the fields--on His way probably to Galilee.]

13. Plucked Grain Precipitates Sabbath Controversy (MT 12:1-8; MK2:23-28; LK 6:1-5)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Mark's "and he entered the synagogue again" of chapter 3 verse 1 sets a limit before the healing of the withered hand. Luke's "now it happened on another Sabbath" of verse 6 agrees with Mark's limit and adds further specific details. Matthew's "at that time," also rightly translated as "in a particular season (time period)" of chapter 12 and verse 1 is a vague time indicator showing that Matthew has reverted back to this event in his narrative. Matthew's "now when he had departed from there" of verse 9 agrees with Mark and Luke's limit.

14. Withered Hand Causes Sabbath Controversy (MT 12:9-14; MK 3:1-6; LK 6:6-11)
Reason: Matthew, Mark, and Luke brought us here. Mark's "but J withdrew with his disciples" of verse 7 sets a limit before the multitudes are healed prior to J selecting his 12 apostles. Luke's "now it came to pass" of verse 12 sets a later limit than Mark. Matthew's "but when J knew it, he withdrew" of verse 15 agrees with Mark's limit.

15. Multitudes Healed Prior to Selecting the Twelve (MT 12:15-21; MK 3:7-12)
Reason: Matthew and Mark brought us here. Mark's "and he went up the mountain" of verse 13 sets a limit before the selecting of the twelve. Matthew's "then one was brought to him" of verse 22 sets a much later limit than Mark's so Mark has priority.

16. Twelve Apostles Selected (MK 3:13-19; LK 6:12-16)
Reason: Mark brought us here. Mark's "then the multitude came together" of verse 20 sets a limit before J being accused of blasphemy. This limit is superseded by Luke's "and he came down (from the mountain)" of verse 17 which takes priority. Mark's limit will come into play much later.

17. Multitudes Healed after Twelve are Selected (LK 6:17-19)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Luke's "and he came down" of verse 17 indicates progression from the previous event. Luke's "then he lifted up his eyes" of verse 20 sets a limit before the giving of the beatitudes.

18. The Beatitudes (MT 5:1-7:29; LK 6:20-49)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Matthew's "and seeing the multitudes"of chapter 5 verse 1 brings him up to this event from where he left off at the end of chapter 4. Matthew mentions that J went up on the mountain, then simply does not include details of selecting the twelve and coming back down from the mountain, and then reports "when he was seated," which is where Luke records was on a level place. Matthew, then, does not contradict the details reported by Luke. Luke's "now when he concluded all his sayings" of chapter 7 sets a limit before J healing the centurion's servant.

NOTE: Matthew's "when he had come down from the mountain" is a time indicator noting when the multitudes followed him. As mentioned earlier, it is possible, based on the language that Matthew uses, that the next event is the healing of a leper who did not publish abroad what J had done. It is also possible that after mentioning J coming down from the mountain, Matthew reverts back to the previous leper that was healed. Either way, Luke's prior limit now brings us to the next event.

19. The Centurion's Servant is Healed (MT 8:5-13; LK 7:1-10)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Luke's "now it happened the day after"of verse 11 sets a very specific limit to before the widow's son was raised from the dead. Matthew's "now when J had come into Peter's house" is a time indicator showing that Matthew has reverted back to a previous event. This, then, is the third visit to Capernaum after the 4 were called.

20. The Widow's Son is Raised from the Dead (Luke 7:11-17)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Luke's "then the disciples of John reported" of verse 18 sets a limit to before J allaying John's doubts. No other author reports a more recent limit.

21. J Allays John's Doubts (MT 11:2-19; LK 7:18-35)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Luke's "then one of the Pharisees asked him" of verse 36 sets a limit to before a sinful woman being forgiven. Matthew's "and when John had heard in prison" of verse 2 shows that Matthew has reverted back to this event. Matthew's "then he began to rebuke" sets an earlier limit than Luke's which, therefore, has priority and brings us to Matthew's next event.

22. J Pronounces Woes upon the Privileged (MT 11:20-30)
Reason: Matthew brought us here. The "at that time" or "in a particular time period" of chapter 12 and verse 1 is a time indicator which cannot be used to limit progression. As such, Luke's previous limit now brings us to the next event.

23. A Sinful Woman Anoints J (Luke 7:36-50)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Luke's "now it came to pass" of chapter8 verse 1 sets a limit to before another tour of Galilee. No other writer creates an earlier limit.

24. Another Tour of Galilee (Luke 8:1-3)
Reason: Luke brought us here. Luke's "and when a great multitude hadgathered" of verse 4 is a time indicator which cannot necessarily beused to limit progression. Amazingly, Mark's prior progression limit that was set it Mark 3:19 that has not been used now enters here. This brings us to the next event for no other author sets an earlier limit.

25. J is Accused of Blasphemy (MT 12:22-37; MK 3:20-30)
Reason: Mark alone brought us here. Mark's "then his brothers and his mothers came" of verse 31 limits the progression of this event to the mother and brothers seeking an audience. Matthew's "then one was brought to him" of verse 22 has caught Matthew up to this point from having reverted to the past in chapter 12 and verse 1. Matthew's "then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered" of MT 12:38 creates an earlier limit which takes priority over Mark's limit, bringing us to the next event.

26. J's Answer to a Demand for a Sign (Matthew 12:38-45)
Reason: Matthew brought us here. Matthew's "while he was still talking to the multitudes" of verse 26 agrees with Mark's prior limit that was set, bringing us to the next event.

27. Mother and Brothers Seek an Audience (MT 12:46-50; MK 3:31-35)
Reason: Matthew and Mark brought us here. Matthew's "on the same day" of chapter 13 verse 1 sets a limit before the giving of the parables. Mark's "and he began to teach by the sea" of Mark chapter 4 and verse 1 agrees with Matthew's limit.

28. Famous Parables are Spoken (MT 13:1-53; MK 4:1-34; LK 8:4-18)
Reason: Matthew and Mark brought us here. Matthew's "when he had cometo his own country" of verse 54 is a time indicator which cannot necessarily be used to limit progression. Mark's "on the same day" of verse 35 sets a limit before the sea was made serene. Luke's "then his mother and brothers came to him" of verse 19 sets a possible more recent limit.

NOTE: Mother and Brothers May Have Continued to Seek an Audience (Luke 8:19-21)
Reason: Luke may have brought us here. After the mother and brothers sought an audience while J was in the house, they may have sought an audience once again while standing outside of the crowd of people. The difference in the recorded response of J compared to Matthew and Mark makes this possible. Nevertheless, the Greek word of verse 19 translated "then" can be adversative and so does not necessitate forward progression. Either way, the previous limit that was set still stands.

29. The Sea is Made Serene (MT 8:23-27; MK 4:35-41; LK 8:22-25)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Matthew's "now when he got into a boat" of verse 23 is a time indicator showing that Matthew has reverted back to this previous event after going forward in MT8:19-22. Mark's "then they came to the other side" of chapter 5 and verse 1 sets a limit before the Gadarene demoniac being healed. Luke's "then they sailed" of verse 26 agrees with Mark's limit. Matthew's "when he had come to the other side" of verse 28 agrees with the limit as well.

30. The Gadarene Demoniac is Healed (MT 8:28-9:1; MK 5:1-20; LK 8:26-39)
Reason: Matthew, Mark, and Luke brought us here. The "and behold"(ESV) of Matthew chapter 9 and verse 2 cannot be used to limit progression. Mark's "when J had crossed over" is a time indicator which makes reference to the previously reported event, setting a limit. Luke's "so it was, when J returned" agrees with Mark's limit.

31. John's Disciples Inquire about Fasting (MT 9:14-17)
Reason: The prior limit set by Matthew, mentioned in event 11, now comes into play. The mentioning in MT 9:18 of the closeness of this event to just before the limit recently set forth by Mark and Luke in event 30 brings us here. The fact that John's disciples are asking the question in this account instead of the scribes and Pharisees reported earlier in Mark and Luke as well as the bold statement by Matthew of the short time between this event and the next, shows that this is not the same event as event 11. That the questions are the same explains why the answer is similar. Matthew's "while he spoke these things to them" sets a limit which agrees with the limit previously set forth by Mark and Luke, bringing us to the next event.

32. Jairus' Daughter is Healed (MT 9:18-26; MK 5:21-43; LK 8:40-56)
Reason: Matthew, Mark, and Luke brought us here. Matthew's "when J departed from there" of verse 27 is a time indicator making reference to the previously reported event, setting a limit for progression. Mark's "then he went from there" of chapter 6 and verse 1 and Luke's"then he called his twelve disciples together" of chapter 9 and verse 1 are both later limits than what Matthew has set. Matthew's limit has priority.

33. Two Blind Men's Sight are Restored (Matthew 9:27-31)
Reason: Matthew brought us here. Matthew's "as they went out" of verse 32 leads us to the next event without another author indicating otherwise.

34. Mute Demoniac Healed (Matthew 9:32-35)
Reason: Matthew brought us here. Matthew's "then J went out" of verse35 sets a later limit than that of Mark 6:1 which takes priority, bringing us to Nazareth's second rejection of J.

35. Nazareth's Second Rejection of J (MT 13:54-58; MK 6:1-6)
Reason: Mark alone brought us here. Mark's "and he called" of verse 7 limits the progression of this event to before the sending out of the twelve. Matthew's "when he had come to his own country" of verse 54 is a time indicator showing that Matthew has finally returned to this event in his narrative that he had intentionally skipped before.

36. The Twelve are Sent Out (MT 9:36-11:1; MK 6:6-13; LK 9:1-6)
Reason: Mark alone brought us here. Matthew's "but when he saw the multitudes" of verse 36 is adversative and a time indicator but also lines up with Mark's previous progression limit, bringing Matthew up to this point as well. Mark's "now King Herod heard of Him" of Mark6:14 sets a limit before Herod hearing about J. Luke's "now Herod the tetrarch heard" agrees with Mark's limit.

37. Herod Hears of J (MT 14:1-12; MK 6:14-29; LK 9:7-9)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Matthew's "at that time" is a time indicator which, nevertheless, falls in line with Mark and Luke's prior limit, catching Matthew up to this event after having reverted to the past second rejection of Nazareth.

Notice: there are no reported events by any writer between the sending out of the twelve and Herod hearing of J.

ALL PASSAGES OF THIS TIME PERIOD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND EXHAUSTED. THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO OTHER REPORTED EVENTS BY ANY OF THE FOUR GOSPEL WRITERS DURING THIS TIME PERIOD.

Now, it has briefly been shown the amazing trail of evidence that has been left behind by all 3 of the synoptic gospel writers, as well as the fourth, which reveals the chronological sequence of all reported events between all 4 writers in this time period. If one looks at the above outline, it should be noticed that different authors contain the "keys" to locating when certain events took place. No one author has all of the keys for the entire sequence. Remarkably, however, all gospel writers contain all of the keys among the four of them so that there is no uncertainty as to where any reported event falls in the grand sequence in relation to the other reported events. It is important to note that never has there been any other time in all of history where 4 different accounts have allowed the creation of such a sequence of all reported events on the life of an individual than it has on this one denoted as "J." By carefully comparing all three of the accounts, observing progression indicators and time indicators which do not necessitate progression, the above sequence is revealed without any contradiction between any of the writers. Now, if one wants to test the above sequence, it should be noted that there are certain times when two authors report the same event but provide different progression limits for the next possible event in the sequence. One must test both limits or previous limits that have not yet been used when deciding which reported event falls next in the overall chronological timeline. If one tests the "wrong" limit, placing a later event earlier than it truly occurred, he or she will find that when he or she then tries to piece together the rest of the puzzle pieces provided by the other authors that "contradictions" between progression indicators will occur. If one wants to end the search there and believe within themselves that contradictions genuinely exist between the authors simply on the matter of chronological progression and that the authors were either lying or misinformed, then they are free to do so. But if one tests the other limit or limits that were provided by the other authors and then begins to piece together the timeline puzzle using the "correct" limit, he or she will then find that the new sequence does not contain the "contradictions" of the previous attempt. When piecing together the puzzle pieces, comparing the reported time progression indicators, and noting the words and phrases which do not necessitate chronological progression, the grand puzzle of events fit together in a nice chronological sequence without any author using language that contradicts the language of another author. The above sequence is the result of thorough investigation of all possible puzzle pieces and all possible paths and has been known for centuries. If any would like to perform their own investigative search into this and is not sure how to begin doing so, the above outline is a great reference to use which one can test to see if any weaknesses or contradictions can be found. Also, there are countless books that have been written on the Harmony of the Gospels if one would like to read about this from others. If one performs the search and concludes with the outline that yes, all of the puzzle pieces fit together and create this sequence, he or she must ask themselves this question: "if any of the authors were lying, misinformed, or else incompetent on the matter of chronological progression of recorded events, what are the chances that all keys could have been left behind by four different writers, no single writer having all of the keys, which reveal such a grand timeline of events, requiring the careful comparing and investigating of all 3 synoptic accounts, plus the fourth, for one to "discover?" Also, what are the chances that no author on any single occasion would have used language which contradicts the above sequence of events, necessarily placing a certain event in an incorrect time period in relation to where other reporters place the same event, if any of them were being careless or were incorrect?

If one can conclude that the puzzle could not possibly have been left behind by chance or coincidence or careless manipulation, then this timeline is a perfect test to see if the Talmud of Jmmanuel is the original document that Matthew used to create his gospel. One will notice when looking at the timeline that there are numerous times when Matthew jumps around the chronological sequence of events. The events that are reported in Matthew which have their cognates in the Talmud of Jmmanuel are presented in the exact same order that the Talmud of Jmmanuel presents the events. The odds of this happening by separate investigation techniques is next to impossible unless the events are all reported in chronological order or that the one author had the exact same purpose as the other when choosing to group the events in the particular order that he chose. The only other option, which is much more reasonable, is that one author was looking off of the other person's work while distorting the details, adding some events, and omitting other events. Since Matthew shows by the above chronological sequence that he does not present events in chronological order and Matthew's order is the same as the TJ's, especially in Matthew chapters 5 through 13 which have their TJ cognates, did the author of the Talmud of Jmmanuel create his or her own sequence for events based on some other purpose than chronological progression and then Matthew took the sequence for himself? Since Matthew's language does not contradict the above sequence, showing that he was likely one who lived with, walked with, and talked with J in order to know of the order of events, does the Talmud of Jmmanuel's language contradict the above sequence, showing that its author most likely did not live with, walk with, or talk with J? If it can be shown that the Talmud of Jmmanuel does contradict the above sequence, is it reasonable or logical to conclude that a masterful chronological conspiracy has resulted in the works of all three of the synoptic gospel accounts, plus the fourth, which have passed through history for nearly 2000 years? If theTalmud of Jmmanuel does contradict the above sequence and one desires to believe that the Talmud of Jmmanuel is not only the original document that Matthew used but also contains all truth, then he or she must also adopt one of the CCCs into their own world view. The two CCC options are that there was either a Clever Chronological Conspiracy or a Coincidental Chronological Cover-up. These will be explained in detail at a later time, but first, let's see if the Talmud of Jmmanuel contradicts the sequence, placing events in incorrect time periods….