TJ Comments

Comments are welcomed on the comparisons between the verses or passages shown from the Gospel of Matthew and their TJ parallels. TJ stands for Talmud of Jmmanuel, discovered in 1963 by Eduard Meier and Isa Rashid.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK WELCOME

I would be interested in reading your constructive feedback on the Matthew-versus-TJ critiques I've presented. In particular, if you know of particular pieces of scholarly analyses I've overlooked that have bearing upon the arguments involved and are not based on false assumptions, I would be glad to learn of them and the associated references. Be sure to state which Matthean or TJ verse(s) you are commenting upon. However, before doing this, if you haven't already read the Introduction to these Matthean-TJ verse comparisons, I would ask that you do so.

posted by Jim Deardorff @ 5:36 PM  

39 Comments:

  • At 9:15 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Thanks to Creamhorn, Victor Gatica and Chesmayne for their kind remarks.

    Lately much of my time has been spent on the solution to the Synoptic Problem that places Hebraic Matthew ahead of Mark, with Luke third and John fourth, and at about that latter time, Hebraic Matthew being translated into Greek.

    It seems to be an "unspeakable" solution, since it takes account of the anti-gentile statements within Matthew that would have helped prompt an anti-Jewish response by the pro-gentile writer of Mark in Rome. It was mainly this response, I believe, that caused 19th-century NT scholars to abandon the statements by the early church fathers that a Hebraic Matthew had come first, and decide that they'd better opt for Mark having come first. Then the blatent anti-Jewish alterations seen in Mark, relative to Matthew, could be alleviated. Then they could say that the writer of Matthew softened Mark's harder readings.

    So in www.tjresearch.info/MAH.htm the details are set forth, where MAH stands for "Modified Augustinian Hypothesis." I've taken some time to spell out this solution in my website, as most NT scholars are presently stuck on Markan priority (plus "Q"), and hence are not interested in looking into the Talmud of Jmmanuel if it indicates that Matthew was formed out of it, and THEN Mark.

    So far, this MAH solution, although it overcomes all previous objections I've noticed to Matthean priority over Mark, while explaining much of what they can't explain, has been "unspeakable" because it indicates that the editorial behaviors of the writers of the synoptic Gospels were "unspeakable" by present standards.

     

  • At 1:47 AM , Blogger Harry said...

    I want to commend you for the work you have done. You did not only analyze the TJ, but you also helped expose the book of Mathew for what it really is. I will often refer to your website to gleam more information as to the credibility of the Gospel of Mathew. I did have some problems with your analysis. Where many people ignore nonsense to justify their beliefs, I tend to base my beliefs on whether something makes sense or not. My intention is not to criticize you, your work, or your beliefs, but simply point out what I believe are flaws, or perhaps only issues that need further explanation to resolve.

    Something that caught my attention was at TJ 25:54 where it states

    “…Earth will pass away, and so will the universe…”.

    Was there a word for an unknown concept such as “Universe” in the Hebrew or Greek languages when the TJ was supposed to have been written? If the TJ predates the books of the Gospels, then such a concept did not exists, and therefore it stands to reason no word for “universe” existed. In the Gospels we see that ancient people only knew about heavens and earth. Even you admitted stars were believed to be in the heavens, that being the sky. To get around this, you mentioned the space travelers revealed the truth about the universe to Jmmanuel who simply passed on the information to his disciples. However, that explanation does not resolve the real issue. How could the writer of TJ describe the concept of the universe with only one word when such a word was not part of any language until the 1600’s? In addition, not only should the disciples have been baffled by this new concept requiring additional clarification to them, but the writer of the TJ should also have been baffled and questioned what Jmmanuel meant by using what must have been a newly invented word, or concept. Instead of the word “universe”, the TJ should have used words that existed at that time to describe the concept of a universe.

    But, let us suppose there was a description of the universe narrative that got condensed into a single word during the translation process. Since the concept of the universe was unknown at that time, it requires us to believe Jmmanuel really knew something he could only have gotten from advanced beings (or entities), as it would otherwise have been unreasonable to make guesses as to how the cosmos really works. So, we are left with not only believing that TJ predates the Gospels of the Bible, but also that it speaks the truth. And if it speaks the truth, then everything about it must make sense. Although the TJ clears up much of the nonsense we find in the Gospel of Mathew, there are still some issues. Let me just touch on three issues here.

    First Issue: The Gospel of Mathew used Isaiah’s prophecy of a virgin birth to give credibility to the story of the divine birth of Jesus. When we read the chapter in Isaiah where Isaiah prophesies a virgin birth, we find that the prophecy only makes sense if the birth occured within the lifetime of King Ahaz, that being the king of Judah at about 700 BC (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html). That complete story can be found starting at Isaiah 7:1 and the prophecy of the virgin birth is given at Isaiah 7:14. As you well know, this is a serious problem, as it requires Jesus to have been born some 700 years BC, at the time when Isaiah was living. You minimize the issue by claiming the story given in Isaiah 7 was reworked many times, suggesting that it is unreliable, thus can be disregarded. However, the oldest manuscript of Isaiah that we have was found at Qumran and it is claimed to have the same context as that of the Masoretic version of Isaiah, which is what we read in the KJV of the Bible. One difference being that it states a “young woman will be with child”, where the King James Biblical version states a “virgin shall be with child”. However, in either case, the context of the story requires the child to be born in the days of king Ahaz. Was Jmmanuel that child? If so, then Jmmanuel was born some 700 years or so before the time Jesus is claimed to have been born. In addition, we would then have to realize the manuscripts of TJ found in Israel could not have been the originals, as they were not in the form of scrolls, where the manuscripts found at Qumran all were. Flat writing media was a later invention. If the Dead Sea scrolls (the scrolls found at Qumran) were hidden, as scholars believe, by the Essences in response to the Jewish war of 70 AD, that would require flat writing media (papyri, parchment, or whatever) not to be in existence until after 70 AD. Otherwise, along with the scrolls, they would have found literature written on flat media. It is also note worthy that the birth was to be a sign to King Ahaz that his enemies would not defeat him. Yet, in II Chronicles 28, we read that King Ahaz was indeed defeated, thereby making this a failed prophecy unless we stretch our imagination and believe this was a different King Ahaz who was also born to a man named Jotham and also ruled in Judah. Using this failed prophecy to validate the birth of Jesus or Jmmanuel is highly suspect to me given the knowledge I have. Maybe you have some insight I do not?

    Second Issue: This may be a minor point, but it still requires explanation. At TJ 25:49 we read

    “…and call together his trusted followers from the four directions, from one end of the Earth to the other.”

    The issue here is that “end of Earth” indicates a flat earth, as a sphere does not have any ends. Is a flat earth the teaching of a man of wisdom?

    Third Issue: At Mt 24:34 we read

    "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place."

    While at TJ 25:52-53 we read:

    52-"Truly, truly, I say to you, this is how it will be. 53-And that generation will not pass away until all of this has happened."

    This passage has always been in contention. Christians must believe the words “this generation” refers to a future generation that will see all, that which was prophesied, come to pass. However, when we compare the use of “this generation” by Jesus in other passages, we see that it always was intended to mean the generation that Jesus was talking to at the time. Consider Mt 12:42, where Jesus just foretold about his resurrection and then claimed

    24-“The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it…”.

    Is there anyone that believes some future queen of the south will rise up with some future generation condemning the claim of Jesus’ resurrection? Also, at Mark 8:11-12, the Pharisees tempted Jesus asking him for a sign from heaven to prove his divinity, where Jesus responded

    12-“…Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I [Jesus] say unto you [Pharisees], There shall no sign be given unto this generation”.

    Who will deny that Jesus was not talking to the generation of the Pharisees? However, the real issue with claiming this refers to some future generation is that either some future generation will exist, which goes without saying, or some future generation will suddenly be void of death until all is fulfilled. A wise man would not say something that is obvious, therefore, if we take the Christian stance, we must assume some future generation will suddenly not die until all is fulfilled, which, if you think about it, is nonsense in the context of the Christian doctrine. The TJ avoids the issue by indicating that it will be that generation (meaning a future generation) that will not pass until all is fulfilled. However, here again we have to believe a wise man would not say the obvious. Saying some future generation will exist to witness some future event, is like saying, “after the sunsets, the sun will have set” (at least in the context of this story). Therefore, we are compelled to believe that what is meant here is that some future generation will suddenly not die while the prophesied events unfold. The problem for the doctrine of the TJ is that such an act would require a supernatural intervention in the natural processes of human existence. Does the TJ doctrine leave room for such a possibility?

    The issues mentioned above impact the credibility as to the truth of the story itself. If these issues (and perhaps others) cannot be rationally and logically eliminated, then the use of the concept of universe in the TJ impacts the credibility of it as a whole. One of the main themes of your analysis is that a hoax perpetrator could not conceivably have known certain things that are revealed when the TJ is analyzed. However, there is a possibility, as a student of religion, Mr. Meier did have the opportunity to get considerable insight as to the problems of the Gospel of Mathew. We know that it is not inconceivable, as Francis Beare appears to have such insight.

     

  • At 2:30 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Hello Harry,

    Thanks for your remarks and your interest.

    One thing you questioned involved this:

    "Something that caught my attention was at TJ 25:54 where it states

    “…Earth will pass away, and so will the universe…”.

    Was there a word for an unknown concept such as “Universe” in the Hebrew or Greek languages when the TJ was supposed to have been written?"

    Yes, I think that when the translator came across a phrase containing "the all," he would translate it as "the universe."

    Your next consideration involved: "When we read the chapter in Isaiah where Isaiah prophesies a virgin birth, we find that the prophecy only makes sense if the birth occured within the lifetime of King Ahaz, that being the king of Judah at about 700 BC." You must admit that even the earliest OT mss. we have contain interpolations, such as are in the two patched-together Genesis creation accounts. So, the TJ indicates that the Isaiah prophecy of a coming messiah could have been altered at a very early stage so as to make most sense to the custodians of the Scriptures back around 7th century BCE. Yet, the idea that Isaiah was prophesying a messiah that was unfulfilled by Ahaz must have persisted, too. Why else would the writer of Matthew have cited Isaiah? He certainly would not have if there was no understanding among his associates that Isaiah had not referred to Ahaz.

    On another item: "In addition, we would then have to realize the manuscripts of TJ found in Israel could not have been the originals, as they were not in the form of scrolls, where the manuscripts found at Qumran all were. Flat writing media was a later invention."

    The TJ wasn't written in the Qumrum area. The writing may have started on the Silk Road headed towards India, but certainly was not finished until long after Jmmanuel and party had reached northern India. In India, they did use separate leaves or sheets to write on. These were later rolled into packets and sealed in the animal skin covered with resin that Billy Meier and Isa Rashid found them in. I've called them "rolls."

    Another item is your question: "At TJ 25:49 we read
    “…and call together his trusted followers from the four directions, from one end of the Earth to the other.”
    The issue here is that “end of Earth” indicates a flat earth, as a sphere does not have any ends. Is a flat earth the teaching of a man of wisdom?

    My guess here is that this means "from all parts of the earth." So I don't think that "end" need be taken as literally as you have taken it. There is much in the TJ (and Matthew) that is written (or spoken) for effect, the same way we speak. Similar language was used, e.g., in the Vatican Council of 1869-70: "Everything that God has brought into being He protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well." By then, they well knew the Earth was round.

    Your next item [re Mt 24:34 & TJ 25:52-53]involved, "Christians must believe the words “this generation” refers to a future generation that will see all, that which was prophesied, come to pass. However, when we compare the use of “this generation” by Jesus in other passages, we see that it always was intended to mean the generation that Jesus was talking to at the time.

    This part of the TJ's prophecy definitly refers to the generation
    living at the time when all the later things prophesied, in TJ 25:44-46,51, have occurred. Jmmanuel never made the prophecy of "Jesus" in Mt 10:23, or of Mt 12:41-42, which would otherwise bolster your argument, and some other Matthean statements involving "this generation." But not surprisingly he could speak of "this generation" in either the context of the generation living at his own time, or in the distant future to which his main prophecies applied.

    Jmmanuel (also Jesus) was recognized to be a prophet as well as a wisdom teacher, so there's no need to deny a true prophet from speaking about a future generation that will have to face all the calamities he prophesied for that distant future.

     

  • At 12:36 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    The TJ & "TheSecret.tv"

    I've been digging deeper with the knowledge I received from "The Science of Getting Rich" "The Master Key System", quantum physics and other forms of knowledge that has to do with the universal laws of Creation. As it's getting more popular and getting much criticism, I'm starting the ponder Chapter 35 of the TJ.

    39. "But I tell you that no cult will be righteous if it does not recognize Creation alone as the highest power and does not live according to its laws and directives.
    40. "And no cult will exist that preaches the truthful teachings, the knowledge or the truth.
    41. "It will be two times a thousand years before the time comes when my teachings will be preached anew, without being falsified. This will occur when false doctrines and erroneous cults, when lies and fraud, and when deception by the conjurers of the dead and of spirits, by the soothsayers and clairvoyants, as well as by all charlatans of the truth, will be at their peak

    So, since 'thesecret' used words like Universe instead of GOD, and more study is being done with the universal laws like the "law of attraction" Are we now coming into those times as Jmmanuel as predicted, or is this just a tip of the iceberg becuase we still may have false prophets from this?

    Personally, as I young child, I remember the experience of a haunting at my great-grandmothers house with two spirits that were unrested.

    And about 10 years ago, as I was driving home one late night at 2am, after doing overtime at the post office, a ship hover over the expressway I was on, stop for a sec, looked at me (well I felt like it was sizing me up), and then took off in the sky like star trek wrap speed.

    So after that experience, I always questioned the afterlife and UFOs. I always asked from both sectors that believe in either/or if aliens could see and speak to the afterlife somehow, since they were much more advanced then we were. But no one was able to answer my question.

    Then recently.. I ran across the google video from the convention and downloaded the TJ, printed it, and read it carefully with an opened-mind. To my surprise it answer my questions that bothered me for years. Thanks for the work you do, as I already know this work is not popular, and I've already been excluding from posting this information and my post of forums get deleted. It's such an eye opener for me.

    Thanks

     

  • At 10:11 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Thank you, Philena. Yes, many a list owner is either atheistic, or agnostic, or believes in a personal male God, so they don't want to have anything to do with Jmmanuel's teachings of Creation.

    As to the calamitous days predicted, it does seem that they are rapidly approaching. But this shouldn't stop of from doing all we can to better the future and spread the real truth.

    Interesting UFO sighting you had.

     

  • At 8:28 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Thanks, Tim.

    In his explanation in the TJ of the picture of Jmmanuel that his contactor, Semjase, sketched for him, Meier expresses the strong opinion that the Shroud of Turin's image does not closely match those of the sketch.

    So the other side of your Shroud comment is this. Why was there any faked Shroud of Turin, dating to the 12th or 13th century, unless a real shroud had earlier been known to some persons? Perhaps the real shroud was brought to light during one of the Crusades, then whisked away or destroyed, prompting a fake one to be skilfully fabricated.

    It could be like the counterfeit money problem. We wouldn't have any counterfeit $20 bills around if there weren't first real $20 bills.

     

  • At 6:16 PM , Blogger Elder said...

    This section caught my interest:

    TJ 3:33-4:51 33 Behold, after these words Jmmanuel entered into the metallic light, which climbed into the sky, surrounded by fire and smoke, and passed over the lifeless sea, as the singing of the metallic light soon faded away. 34After that, Jmmanuel was no longer seen for forty days and forty nights... 4:4 Thus, he lived for forty days and forty nights between the winds of the North and the West, where he received the arcanum (secrets) of knowledge. 5During this instruction period he spent his days with the wise saints of El and the guardian angels, the celestial sons... 51Thus they spoke, the celestial sons between the North and the West, before bringing Jmmanuel in the metallic light back to Israel, to the land of Galilee.

    What caught my eye was the statement, "...back to Israel, to the land of Galilee." Why? Because I've studied the terms "Judea", "Judaea", and "Israel" endeavoring to understand the distinction as clearly as possible in my studies on the subversive activities of the Edomites.

    Today, most people see Judea and Israel as the same place, and the same people, and do not realize that they have been two distinct ethnic groups with geographical locations associated with them.

    There was the land of Israel and the land of Judah, the latter changing to Judaea because of the integration with Edom (Edomites taking governing rulership positions before and during the time of Jmmanuel).

    It is my opinion that a hoaxer would not be interested in adding such geo-social language to the verse, language that Matthew left out, nor be inclined to add this language since its significance is scarcely realized.

     

  • At 7:01 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Thanks for that, Elder. I think you're certainly right about a hoaxer, who wanted to change the basics of Christianity not paying attention to such minor details.

     

  • At 6:13 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Is Matthew or the Talmud of Jmmanuel correct?

    Notice what the Talmud of Jmmanuel records about the descendants of Josaphat (Jehosaphat):
    57. Josaphat (Jehoshaphat) begot Jora (Joram or Jehoram).
    58. Jora (Joram or Jehoram) begot Armeneel.
    59. Armeneel begot Usja (Uzziah).
    60. Usja (Uzziah) begot Jothan (Jotham).

    And compare this with Matthew:

    8. Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
    Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
    9. Uzziah the father of Jotham,

    It has already been noted by others that when Matthew is compared with 1 Chronicles chapter 3, it can be seen that Matthew omitted 3 generations that naturally came from Jehoram which anybody could have verified when Matthew wrote his gospel. The three generations were Ahaziah (see 2 Kings 8:25-27), Joash (also spelled Jehoash; see 2 Kings 12), and Amaziah (see 2 Kings 14). Some have proposed that the omission of the 3 generations as receiving recognition of being the names which transferred kingship to the Messiah was the Creator of the Universe's direct response, as He stated in the giving of the 10 commandments which are preserved in the Bible to this day, to the sin of idolatry by visiting the iniquity of the father upon the children to the (in this case) 3rd generation of those who hated Him.

    It is clear that the TJ is intended to show ALL physical descendents, without the omission of anybody for any reason, especially the reason for idolatry which, according to the TJ would be impossible since, according to the teachings of the TJ which receive full approval by the Plejarens, there is no Creator-God of the universe to sin against. What, then, happened to these 3 individuals who are not included in the TJ? As we observe the TJ's genealogy and compare it to Matthew's, we find an "Armeneel" who is inserted between Matthew's Jehoram and Uzziah, much like many additional names are inserted by the TJ as compared to Matthew. As has been noted, most of these "inserted" names resemble the names of the angels who descended to the earth and copulated with man according to the Book of Enoch, another book which the Plejarens give some approval to but not as much as the TJ. A person who is reading Matthew would then be led to assume that these "original names" could have been omitted by Matthew or the original genealogical scribes in response to removing any name that had anything to do with the results of the lawless ones who came to earth, as Deardorff himself has concluded. It can been shown that the "Armeneel" of this passage lines up with one of the angelic names found in the book of Enoch, perhaps the angel of Ananel. Nevertheless, one might be able to say that the "Armeneel" who is included by the TJ could perhaps be a different Aramaic rendering of one of the persons such as Ahaziah or Amaziah who were omitted by Matthew but are found in Chronicles. Even if this is true, what happened to the other two persons?

    Are we to believe that all 3 or 2 of the 3 persons omitted by Matthew never existed in the first place and were invented by the author of the book of Chronicles? The books which are included in the Bible as canonical record the various histories of these men. These books make further statements that additional acts of these men were written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah, a book that is outside the canon of scripture. It would be strange for them to make this statement to the people of their day if these kings truly never existed in the first place.

    So which is more likely, that not only canonical but non-canonical Jewish records happened to verify the existence of these kings and they all just happened to "make up" the existence of these men along with their many accomplishments, some of whom are recorded as disgracing Israel (a fact that would cause one to wonder why Israel would invent them and their disgraceful histories in the first place), or is it more likely that the creator of the Talmud of Jmmanuel was not being very careful and was focusing too much attention on the book of Matthew when deciding to try insert additional names with the goal of leading the reader to believe that there was a "massive coverup" without knowing about the ones that Matthew omitted, which show the Creator's response to idolatry?

    I would like a response as to why Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah do not appear in the Talmud of Jmmanuel if the Talmud of Jmmanuel is supposed to be the original which contains all truth without any names being omitted.

     

  • At 6:38 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    It has also been criticized that while Matthew states there are 3 sets of 14 generations included in his genealogy, there are only 13 generations listed in the generation from Abraham to David, while the other two sets contain 14.

    Response:

    One finds a total of 42 names within this genealogy which can be evenly distributed as the three sets of 14 generations without repeating any names:

    I.
    1. Abraham;
    2. Isaac;
    3. Jacob;
    4. Judah;
    5. Perez;
    6. Zerah;
    7. Hezron;
    8. Ram;
    9. Amminadab;
    10. Nahshon;
    11. Salmon;
    12. Boaz;
    13. Obed;
    14. Jesse

    II.
    1. David;
    2. Solomon;
    3. Rehoboam;
    4. Abijah;
    5. Asa;
    6. Jehoshaphat
    7. Joram
    8. Uzziah
    9. Jotham
    10. Ahaz;
    11. Hezekiah;
    12. Manasseh;
    13. Amon;
    14. Josiah

    III.
    1. Jeconiah;
    2. Shealtiel;
    3. Zerubbabel;
    4. Abiud;
    5. Eliakim;
    6. Azor;
    7. Zadok;
    8. Achim;
    9. Eliud;
    10. Eleazar;
    11. Matthan;
    12. Jacob;
    13. Joseph;
    14. Jesus.

    Here is what is ignored:
    Many will only count Perez and Zerah as one generation because they were twins who lived in the same time period.

    According to the Bible, there are two "kinds" of generations. A generation is either righteous or wicked. A righteous generation, as defined by the Bible itself, is a descendant or descendants who can praise God's works to another generation and declare His mighty acts. (Psalm 145:4) This is a descendant that trusts in the Lord whose faith is accounted as righteousness. When God promised the seed through Abraham and his descendants, the seed was always viewed as coming through the male line, with the first-born male receiving priority unless he was diqualified because of unbelief, thus the blessings were passed on to Isaac, Jacob, Judah, etc. It is also true that each and every wife of these men were a part of the same generation with their husbands. This is because the Bible is very serious when God says that when two people are married they become "one flesh." The wife is not her own generation apart from her husband, and neither is the husband his own generation apart from his wife. Both are one flesh and belong to their own generation. The four women mentioned, then, do not throw off the count because they are inseparably linked to their husbands along with all of the wives of all of these men who were not mentioned by name in Matthew's account.

    We have a unique case with Perez and Zerah, however. Both were righteous according to the Bible, as per what is recorded of them in the Old Testament, and both are mentioned in this genealogy in the first set of 14. There are other people in the genealogy such as Jacob who had a twin brother and yet his twin brother is not mentioned in the genealogy where as both Perez and Zerah are. One might ask, why is this? Usually, when parents had multiple children who were righteous, the blessings, and in the case of this genealogy, the promise of the messiah line, would be given to the oldest child of the righteous children. So under normal circumstances, even with twins, if both twins were righteous as proven by their faith in God that they would have later on in their life, the twin who came out first would be given the birthright to bring the messiah into the world and thus be a part in fulfilling the promise given to Abraham. Only if the first twin was proven to be unrighteous by unbelief would he be disqualified. But if one reads the account of these twins' birth in Genesis 38:27-30, we see why, in this case, Matthew included both names and thus both are to be reckoned in the count. Zerah was reaching out of the womb first so he should have been the first born and thus the line should have come through him. The midwife put the scarlet thread on Zerah's hand, which was the custom used to recognize the first born, but then his brother Perez unexpectedly left the womb first, rightly being the true first born. Matthew was fully convinced that his God did not over look the act of the midwife who recognized Zerah as the first born. Because Perez truly was the first born and was also later proven to be righteous through faith, this One literally came through his line. But Zerah receives recognition as one of the generations connected to bringing in the messiah because the birthright should have been his but his brother Perez stole it unintentionally. Zerah had already received the recognition of the birthright from the string that was placed on his hand by the midwife and Matthew was trying to show that God was giving him recognition for this. Thus, Matthew believed that God would not allow him to exclude Zerah's name from among the 14 righteous generations of the first set that brought the messiah into the world. He is his own righteous generation, and receives recognition as the firstborn, along with his brother in this unique case.

     

  • At 9:25 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    I thank Ben for his scholarly contributions. In response to his first one, I can't help but go with a solution to the problem that follows the TJ text, since I've long studied the many (up to 87) first-hand witnesses who support Eduard Meier as being a genuine ET contactee.

    Hence I conclude that Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah do not appear in the TJ because the line from Joram to Uzziah was linked by a man named Armeneel, just as in the TJ. I don't know why the ancient custodians of the sacred literature needed to expunge the name Armeneel, as I don't see the connection with any of the "fallen" angels; perhaps a reader versed in Hebrew/Aramaic can give a clue.

    The TJ's genealogy fits here if Armeneel was fairly long lived, since Ahaziah was king only 1 year, at age 22 according to 2 Kgs 8:26, and Jehoash was only 7 years old when he began to reign. It may be noted that during Joram's 11-year reign he is not mentioned as having any sons other than Ahaziah. This feeds the suspicion that by minor editorial alterations Armeneel became an unmentioned son of Joram, and Amaziah became Uzziah's father while expunging Armeneel from that role.

    I can't accept that everything in the OT is "Gospel" truth, free from editorial alterations!

    The writer of Matthew would probably have known that Armeneel (and Gadeel also) were strange names there, and not present in 2 Chron and 1&2 Kgs. So upon deciding to omit them, he may have then noticed that he could make three groupings of 14 if he omitted those three names: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, as does the TJ.

    But I wouldn't contest the existence of those three.

     

  • At 6:25 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Time Discrepancy between Matthew’s birth and TJ’s birth:

    It would seem that the TJ has the wise men from the Orient arriving on the very night of Jmmanuel’s birth. It does not seem, however, that Matthew was trying to show that the wise men came on the night of the child's birth. He gives many details that would show that he believed this was not the case.

    It is at this time that it will be shown a huge difference between the recording of events by the Talmud of Jmmanuel and the recording by both Matthew and Luke. Luke records:

    Lu 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
    Lu 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

    The Greek word that Luke used for “babe” in his birth scene with the 3 shepherds is: brephos- meaning a new-born child, an infant, a babe. This Greek word is used for an infant that is either still in the mother’s womb or who has just been newly born. Notice how Luke says, at this time, that the babe was lying in a manger (this would be located, perhaps, in a stable- such as where the Talmud of Jmmanuel records the visit of the three wise men.)

    But Matthew records:

    Mt 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
    Mt 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
    Mt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

    The word that Matthew uses for young child is: paidion- meaning a young child, not newly born. Matthew never uses the word brephos when describing the child, unlike Luke, this is most likely to show that the child, during the visit of the wise men, was older than a new born. The TJ is the only one that seems to call this young one both an infant and a young child interchangeably. This could be an indication that the author of the TJ was attempting to use both accounts in creating the story of the TJ and did not realize that the accounts were set in two very different time settings.

    Matthew says at the end of his chapter that they called him Jesus. Luke states that this occurred 8 days after his birth. Matthew, then, when compared to Luke, has already separated the birth scene from the visit of the wise men by at least 8 days. Most scholars recognize that the visit of the wise men occurred after 40 days, the visit of Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem as recorded in Luke. What would the parents still be doing in the stable over 40 days after the birth of the child? This is why Matthew shows that they were in a “house.” They were likely able to find a dwelling place after the birth scene. It was only the night of the birth that they could not find room in the inn. The author of the TJ may have noticed that the Greek word Matthew uses in his account for “house” means simply “a dwelling place” and could be a dwelling place either for humans or animals. This could be why Mary and Joseph are located in a “stable” in the TJ account. It would make sense in Matthew’s account that Joseph might not be present at the time of the visit of the Magi because, as can be seen in Matthew’s account, the visit does not necessarily occur on the night of the birth. Joseph very well could have been out in the field at work and then later returned home to find the wise men there. Further evidence that Matthew’s scene occurs quite some time after the birth is that the wise men asked: "where is the one born?..." not, "where will the one be born?..."

    The strangest detail of all is a detail that both Matthew and the TJ record: In both Matthew and the Talmud of Jmmanuel, the king asks the wise men when the star appeared. In Matthew, it is very clear why the king asked this question. It was a well known custom in those days that the advent of a ruler would be signaled by a new star appearing. Whether or not this custom was true at all times does not matter since the king would have likely believed this to be true anyways, which is why he asked the question. The king had already learned about out WHO was born (one who was King of the Jews) and he already learned WHERE he was born (in Bethlehem) and now he was trying to determine WHEN this one was born. If this one was born quite some time ago and was an adult, then King Herod would feel that his throne was in danger of being overtaken. Both the TJ and Matthew seem to indicate that the king was worried about this. Therefore, when he asked about when the star appeared, he was trying to determine the age of the child because he believed that the star would have appeared the night the child was born. After asking when the star appeared, it is assumed that the wise men must have answered him because he then states in Matthew: “Go and search carefully for the YOUNG CHILD.” The king uses this Greek word here which is the only one Matthew uses in his account which is “paidion,” meaning young child, not new born infant. The order is later made by the king in Matthew’s account to kill all children under 2 according to the time (of the appearing of the star) which he asked of the wise men. Even though Matthew and the TJ disagree about this event, it can still be used to determine what Matthew was trying to show, that the king believed the star appeared on the night of the child’s birth and that the small boy was closer to the age of 2 than being a new born infant according to the time the wise men told him. The king must have known the child was born quite some time ago to have to included the age up to 2 even though he may have over compensated the age in the same way that he over compensated the area where the child likely was.

    One must ask the question: if the Talmud of Jmmanuel is the original document which was distorted, why does it even record the king asking this question in the first place? If he asked it in error because of his notion that it would have appeared on the night of the birth when in reality it began to lead the wise men to the place long before the birth (which would have been necessary in order for them to arrive on the night of the birth from such a great distance which seems to be what they are doing in the TJ), why doesn’t the TJ give an explanation for this? In stead, the TJ simply avoids the issue altogether and states that he “later directed them to Bethlehem” and then continues to refer to the one as an infant in contrast to Matthew.

    One might be led to conclude that the author of the TJ could not have the “star” appearing on the night of the birth because this would contradict the ET capabilities to predict when a child would be born and have a spacecraft begin to lead the way long in advance. Since the TJ’s “star” is a space craft, the scene then has the wise men coming to the “infant” on the very night of the birth while both Mary and Joseph are still in the stable (as likely in Luke’s account of the 3 shepherds, not the 3 wise men). But Matthew seems to show that this “star” appeared on the night of the birth and was the indicator that the wise men would have recognized and have been able to interpret since they were astrologers. They then traveled a long distance and arrived much later than the birth scene.

    I would like a response as to why the king is recorded asking this question in the TJ if no explanation would be given or shown as to why he asked it in the first place, whereas the reason can be easily seen in Matthew.

     

  • At 12:11 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    The TJ indeed uses the term infant and young child interchangeably, but apparently just to avoid too much redundancy. It uses "Kindlein" = baby or infant 9 times, uses "newborn" 3 times, and then "young boy" once and "child" once, by my quick count. It was apparently due to the author's (Judas's) prerogative to avoid too much repetition of the same Aramaic word that was translated into “Kindlein”. The Aramaic/Hebrew has the capability for such variations. But of course we don't know for sure if any of it was due to Rashid when translating it into German. In German Kindlein means baby as well as "little child," as in the lullaby "Schlaf, Kindlein, Schlaf." (If only we had the original Aramaic!)

    Similar literary freedom is used by Judas when relating the story about Herod the tetrarch and John the Baptist. He used the title "king" once to relieve overuse of "Herod" 6 times, when he could have used the more proper term "tetrarch" if he had wished to interject Greek into his Aramaic at that point.

    You can't conclude much of anything definitive by comparing Matthew and Luke and assuming both are correct. It's pretty well known that the writer of Luke went out of his way to contradict Matthew. However, we can see that a few of his contradictions utilized information from the TJ that the writer of Matthew had altered. In those instances Luke is much closer to the TJ truth than Matthew is.

    At the point where Matthew has Herod saying to search for the young child, or "Paidion", the TJ has him asking where the "Kindlein" or baby was. This was likely a purposeful alteration by the writer of Matthew to support his slightly later insertion of the (false) incident of Herod having all male children in Bethlehem under the age of two killed (for the purpose of making Jesus' babyhood equally as notable as that of Moses).

    Ben asks why the TJ bothers to record Herod (the tetrarch, not the king) asking the question of when the "star" appeared. It would seem to have been for the obvious reason that he wanted to find out if he would be able to search out the potentially dangerous infant and have him slain. For this he had to know how recent an event it was when the magi last saw "the bright light with the long tail." If very recent, then the magi ought to be still able to find him in Bethlehem as the chief priests and scribes had indicated, and report back to Herod. Evidently the reply he got from the magi was that it was recent, otherwise he wouldn’t have ordered them to search Bethlehem for the baby.

    Should Herod at that time instead have gathered his guards together and gone to Bethlehem himself to search him out? This seems a possibility. But he let the magi do this for him, perhaps because they had informed him of this "bright light with the long tail" that had guided them up to that point, and it would probably continue to guide them, he may have thought, but perhaps not guide a ruler's crew bent on slaughter.

    It's only well into Matthew's nativity that one might infer that the infant was up to a year or two old, and that Herod thought it was a young child he needed to seek out, not a newly born. Mt 2:1 follows the TJ (2:1) rather closely in having J be born at the time the magi came to Jerusalem. So trying to make it seem as if he were older constituted some inconsistent editing on the part of the writer of Matthew. I wouldn’t trust Luke much either, however.

    In the TJ, there's no doubt that the ET inside the "bright light with the long tail" had known well in advance when J would be born, while he was guiding the magi on their trek. He would know because he was probably the one who had earlier seen to it that Mary was impregnated, if he didn’t also know from prophecy and/or remote sensing of Mary more precisely when she would give birth. So I see the TJ account as being consistent here.

    Thanks for providing the summary at the end of your explanatory questions as a reminder of their gist.

     

  • At 12:59 PM , Blogger Unknown said...

    For clarification:

    If the reason for Herod's question was that "it would seem to have been for the obvious reason that he wanted to find out if he would be able to search out the potentially dangerous infant and have him slain," wouldn't it have made better sense for Herod to ask where the light was going and not when it first appeared in the sky?

    Weren't the wise men allegedly following this light for a very long time, a light that was moving just ahead of them which guided them the whole way to Jerusalem? What, then, would it matter when the light first "appeared" unto them?

    If they followed this light the whole way to Jerusalem, what would have made Herod think that this light would not have guided them the whole way to the infant's exact location? For that matter, what would have made the wise men think that this light which they had been following for a long time was not going to able to guide them the whole way to the exact location of the infant?

     

  • At 1:11 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    Curiosity Question:

    Mr. Deardorff,

    In your over 20 years of research into the Talmud of Jmmanuel, have you found any historic records other than the Talmud of Jmmanuel which verify the existence of any of the additional names that are recorded in the TJs genealogy but are nowhere to be found in Matthew's genealogy, Luke's genealogy, or any genealogy within the OT scriptures?

     

  • At 5:07 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben,

    The bright light evidently disappeared after leading the magi to Jerusalem. Neither Herod nor any of his advisors knew anything about it. So Herod couldn't very well ask where it was going if it was not still evident in the sky to look at.

    It was probably by ET intention that they didn't lead the magi directly to Bethlehem in the first place: they wanted to get Herod involved.

    The text doesn't say that Herod asked when the light had first appeared to the magi. I should think that he would be most interested in when it had last appeared to them. Herod apparently believed his chief priests and scribes, and thought that they had adequately answered where he would be, or was, born.

    You ask, "If they followed this light the whole way to Jerusalem, what would have made Herod think that this light would not have guided them the whole way to the infant's exact location?" Well, the light had gone out, and the magi had to ask around as to whereabouts the newborn baby was.

    So the magi were evidently temporarily at a loss to find the whereabouts of the young child. Without that light, which had guided them for so long, what were they to do? But they knew that they were close to their destination, since they had arrived in the land of the Jews. So they asked around.

     

  • At 5:12 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Regarding your question on genealogical names, I think you already know my mention of the 16 or so names that derived from Semjaza's fallen angels.

     

  • At 5:57 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    My Final Question on the Appearing of the Star:

    Forgive me if this sounds repetitive, but I still cannot understand this.

    How would the most recent appearing of the light to the wise men indicate to Herod that the child would still be in Bethlehem if the identification of Bethlehem as the whereabouts of the child had nothing to do with the light but was the birth place of the child according to prophecy? The final appearing of the light would not indicate how long ago the child was born or whether or not the parents may have moved out of Bethlehem, right?

     

  • At 8:08 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Let me be a bit repetitive here.

    The magi had been told earlier, by a voice from the light, that a newborn king of wisdom was to appear in the land of the Jews. The light guided them all the way to Jerusalem, but then vanished from their sight. So they asked around where the newborn king was or would be. Word of what/who they were seeking then reached Herod. His advisors deduced that the birth would be in Bethlehem. So, first Herod learned approximately where, but at that time the magi didn’t know where. Next Herod had to learn When, so he arranged for the magi to consult with him on that.

    The TJ doesn’t tell us their answer; they might have told Herod it was the previous evening, or the previous week. If it was the former, he would remain intensely interested, and would inform the magi so that they'd lead him to the infant. If more like the latter, he could lose interest, and feel that there had not been anything to it, right? The bright light wouldn’t be expected to return if it had not reappeared after several days or weeks.

    Either way he didn’t want others to know he had felt threatened, so it was in secret that he consulted with the magi.

    Shouldn’t one expect that Herod would ask both Where and When? He had already learned Why. “Where” would probably come before “When”, to learn if it was a matter within his purview.

    But how rigorously correct should we regard the TJ to be on the details of this? Jmmanuel probably learned about it all from his ET father over a dozen years later, as his parents weren’t privy to Herod’s thoughts and private communications. It was years later still that J dictated it to Judas.

     

  • At 6:37 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mr. Deardorff,

    Would you say, based on the language that is used in the Talmud of Jmmanuel, that the events which are recorded in chapter 8 of the Talmud of Jmmanuel are presented in chronological order?

     

  • At 12:08 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mr. Deardorff,

    About your writing on PAPIAS, VIA EUSEBIUS, ON MATTHEW, what are your reasonings for assuming that Logia does not simply refer to the Old Testament scriptures? It is clear that the author of Matthew makes frequent use in his gospel of quoting from the OT scriptures that existed in his day, even if these scriptures were falsified. Would not this simply be the Logia that the author(s) of Matthew interpreted when he (they) said that events in the life of "J" were fulfilling OT prophecies?

     

  • At 3:06 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 8:14 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben,

    I reply to your "6:37 AM" comment above, regarding chronological order, in the separate Post of March 11, 2008.

    Your "12:08 PM" comment above, regarding Papias, is responded to there also.

     

  • At 6:38 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mr. Deardorff,

    Does the German word for "leave" in the account of the angel speaking to Joseph before the birth in the TJ carry the same weight as "divorce?" If it does not and simply means leaving her like someone of our day would without having to "divorce" her, even though there might be a distinction made in the TJ between engagement and marriage, wouldn't this still show ignorance of Jewish custom?

     

  • At 5:53 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mr. Deardorff,

    In your discussion of MT 9/TJ 9, you state:

    "The TJ indicates, moreover, that some, if not all, of the additional laborers who were found became disciples, and that their number had become twelve by that point. The key difference in wording here is that in the TJ verse more laborers are prayed for, indicating that the disciples were the laborers who were too few, not yet being twelve in number, while in Matthew the prayer is just for "laborers" to send out."

    My question:
    Are you saying that all 8 that were not part of the first 4 were found at this point?

    Are you also saying that Judas was found and began following J at this point?

     

  • At 6:40 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    We don't know when Judas joined the disciples. It could have been as early as soon after the Sermon, or as late as TJ 9:47, or somewhere in between but not commented upon by the TJ's writer.

     

  • At 6:51 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote: "Does the German word for "leave" in the account of the angel speaking to Joseph before the birth in the TJ carry the same weight as "divorce?" If it does not and simply means leaving her like someone of our day would without having to "divorce" her, even though there might be a distinction made in the TJ between engagement and marriage, wouldn't this still show ignorance of Jewish custom?"

    The German verlassen means: leave, quit, relinquish, forsake, give up, abandon, desert. So if Joseph had then left Mary he would have relinquished his betrothal, and of course there would then have been no subsequent marriage.

     

  • At 5:22 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Further Analysis of the TJ’s Genealogy:

    It is well-known that the city of Jericho was taken in approximately 1405 to 1400 B.C. This was during the time of the harlot Rahab. David did not become King over the Jews until approximately 1010 B.C. Since he was thirty years old when he began to reign, that means that he was born in the year of approximately 1040 B.C. These dates are supported by both biblical and non-biblical records. Therefore, from Rahab to David was, at the very least, about 400 years (some have it closer to 500 years).

    All genealogies in the OT and NT, however, only have 5 generations of men listed during this time period.

    Matthew 1:5-6
    Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab (the harlot of Jericho). Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the King.

    We have 5 male names during this span of approximately 400 or more years: Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David. Rahab was already an adult when Jericho was being taken. She would have had children, therefore, not long after with Salmon. Even allowing Rahab to be zero years old in 1400 B.C. when Jericho was taken, the average age of each man in order for there to be only 4 generations during this, at the very minimum, 360-year period between the taking of Jericho and the birth of David, would be 90 years old each.

    In Abraham’s day, the idea of having children at the age of 90 was already unheard of and it was even more unheard of in Salmon’s days. Because of this, many biblical scholars recognize that the Jews omitted many names during this period of time in both the OT genealogies and the NT genealogies. We already know that Jews have various reasons to omit names from their genealogies but no reasons have been proposed as to why the author of the TJ would have omitted names since it seems that the TJ genealogy’s purpose is to include all names, even the ones omitted by the Jews.

    Surely, if the TJ is the original document, contains all truth, does not have reasons to omit names as the Jews did, and was aided by the help of competent extraterrestrial intelligences, then it will include the missing names of this time period. Scholars will finally be able to see the omitted names of this period of time that have been a mystery for centuries…

    TJ 1:49-52 – Sahna (Salmon) begot Boas. Boas begot Obed. Obed begot Jesse. Jesse begot David.

    Scholars know that there are missing names during this time period. This would have been the perfect time for the TJ to include missing names that would have been believable to competent scholars. It seems that, as a result of the author of the TJ’s lack of knowledge of history at this time, the names remain omitted as they always have. If extraterrestrials aided Judas in this genealogy and were competent in knowing the history of all births, surely they would have included the missing names here. What happened to the names of this time period?....

     

  • At 9:42 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben,

    I can only guess as to probable alternatives. The most likely, I'd guess, is that Salma begot Boas, etc., decades later (you tell me how much later it could have been) by a different wife than Rahab. Is there other reference than in Matthew that it was via Rahab? The writer of Matthew may have inventively slipped her name in at an inappropriate place.

    Another possibility, of course, is that either Jmmanuel or his ET source was "conveniently" or accidentally incorrect in the same way that you think that the genealogy is incorrect.

    Another possibility is that one of the pieces or small fragments of the original TJ that Meier said was not intact had been in that spot of text, and so it could not be fully translated into the German text. At the same time, the missing couple of names that would have been at that spot in the TJ transcription used by the writer of Matthew would need to have been omitted by him, probably because they weren't in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles or elsewhere. But quite unlikely.

     

  • At 2:51 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    Nahshon was clearly a contemporary of Moses and was already an adult when the Israelites were in the Wilderness of Sinai (Numbers 1:7; 2:3; 7:12,17; 10:14). His son, Salmon, would have, therefore, been alive when Jericho was taken, along with Rahab.

    If one wants to say that Matthew may have "inventively slipped her name in at an inappropriate place," making her Salmon's wife when she truly was not, Matthew certainly chose the correct time period to do so.

     

  • At 8:49 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    I wonder, then, if the TJ doesn't indicate that David should be dated earlier, like at 1150 or 1100 BCE. The TJ has 3 more names than in Matthew from David down. Could the usual chronology that dates David be substantially in error?

    TJ: Matthew:

    Abraham Abraham
    Issak Isaac
    Jacob Jacob
    Juda Judah + Tamar
    Anani - - - -
    Ertael - - - -
    Perez Perez
    Hezron Hezron
    Ram Ram
    Aminadab Amminadab
    Savebe - - - -
    Nahesson Nahshon
    Sahna Salmon + Rahab
    Boas Boaz + Ruth
    Obed Obed
    Jesse Jesse
    David David+Uriah's wife
    Solomon Solomon
    - - - Rehoboam
    - - - Abijah
    Asa Asa
    Gadaeel - - - -
    Josaphat Jehoshaphat
    Jora Joram
    Armeneel - - - -
    Usia Uzziah
    Jothan Jotham
    Gadreel - - - -
    Ahas Ahaz
    Itiska Hezekiah
    Manasse Manasseh
    Amon Amos
    Josia Josiah
    Jojachin Jechoniah
    Sealthiel Shealtiel
    Jequn - - - -
    Serubabel Zerubbabel
    Abiud Abiud
    Eliakim Eliakim
    Asor - - - -
    Zadok Zadok
    Achim Achim
    Eliud Eliud
    Eleasar Eleazar
    Matthan Matthan
    Jacob Jacob
    Joseph Joseph
    Immanuel Jesus

     

  • At 5:44 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    It does not matter when David's existence is dated. The only thing that matters is the number of years between the existence of Moses (Nahshon being Moses' contemporary), and the existence of David since both Matthew and the TJ list the same number of generations during this time period as you have shown:

    Nahesson Nahshon
    Sahna Salmon + Rahab
    Boas Boaz + Ruth
    Obed Obed
    Jesse Jesse
    David David+Uriah's wife

    Do the Plejarens ever say that the time gap between Moses and David is substantially less than over 500 years (what biblical and non-biblical records indicate?) If not, it would be strange, then, for them to support the TJ as being fully true.

     

  • At 6:40 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote:

    "It does not matter when David's existence is dated. The only thing that matters is the number of years between the existence of Moses (Nahshon being Moses' contemporary), and the existence of David since both Matthew and the TJ list the same number of generations during this time period..."

    If David lived circa 1100 or 1150 BCE (not 1000) but the dating of Nashon and Jericho's fall is still set at 1400 BCE, then it of course does make a difference, by decreasing the difference in years between.

    I don't know by what method the usual chronology for David's reign is calculated.

     

  • At 6:44 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    If you push David's existence back then you cannot leave the fall of Jericho set where it is. It must be pushed back as well. The history of the Judges after Moses and before David the King requires over 500 years of time in between the two.

     

  • At 11:52 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    That history may not be accurate. The minimalists might be right occasionally. With 1 Chro 2 and Ruth seeming to be so definitive, and with the writer of Luke not having altered or corrected Matthew's genealogy at that point, and with now the TJ in agreement, I believe more question should be placed upon the accuracy of the datings.

    Where, by the way, in the (hopefully accessible) literature do you find a discussion of this problem that you raise? Please reply via email -- that's the way exchanges between two persons best takes place, and this segment has become much too long.

     

  • At 1:53 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    The order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament does not have to do with the chronological order that they were written in. Like the rest of the New Testament, which in no way is grouped chronologically, the gospels were grouped according to subject matter. The gospels, specifically, were placed in this particular order because of how they portray J:

    Matthew portrays him as King of the Jews
    Mark portrays him as a humble Servant
    Luke portrays him as the Son of Man
    John portrays him as Lord of Heaven

    They are in this particular order, then, because this is the order that the 4-fold testimony of God is manifested by the four living creatures which surround God's throne of John's vision recorded in the book of Revelation.

    Revelation 4:7
    "The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like an ox (ESV), the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle."

    Notice the 1st was like a lion who is king of the beasts, which parallels the kingship of J portrayed by Matthew, appearing as the 1st gospel in the NT.
    Notice the 2nd was like an ox, which is an animal used for servant work, which parallels the servanthood of J portrayed by Mark, appearing as the 2nd gospel in the NT.
    Notice the 3rd is like a man, which parallels the manhood of J portrayed by Luke, appearing as the 3rd gospel in the NT.
    Notice the 4th is like an eagle who is the lord of the air, which parallels the lordship of J portrayed by John, appearing as the 4th gospel in the NT.

    In seeing the order that they believed was inspired by the Creator of the universe to present these living creatures and in knowing how each gospel writer portrayed J, it was for these reasons, not the date of the writings, that the early church fathers, who we know had the Revelation in their hands, placed the books in this particular order.

    The saintly Bishop of Lyons, Irenæus (died 202), one of the three persons cited by Deardorff, is quoted as saying: "It is not possible that the Gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life; it is fitting that we should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying our flesh. . . The living creatures (of Revelation) are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord"

    The idea, then, of Irenaeus knowing about the four living creatures and their relation to the gospels and thus, pointing to a theological grouping of the gospels and not chronological grouping is supported by Irenaeus' own statement.

     

  • At 11:32 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote:

    "The order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament does not have to do with the chronological order that they were written in. Like the rest of the New Testament, which in no way is grouped chronologically, the gospels were grouped according to subject matter. The gospels, specifically, were placed in this particular order because of how they portray J:"

    However, it does reflect the chronological order if the early church fathers got it right. With the first Gospel not written until circa 118 CE, the tradition they knew was not particularly old. If there was no reason for them to lie, then their statements should be taken seriously. They state that a Hebraic Matthew came first, then Mark then Luke.

    Your grouping is only one possibility out of several. Another is: a) The writer of Matthew had first access to the TJ;

    b) The writer of Mark, being in on the evangelizing of gentiles in Rome, did not like Matthew's anti-gentile slant, and so made his text much more pro-gentile;

    c) The writer of Luke found that much Judaistic material omitted in Mark needed reincorporation into a more universal gospel.

    d) The writer of John appears to have made use of both Matthew and Luke, and a bit of Mark, in forming a more spiritual gospel, in which case his gospel came after the other three.

    You need to spell out your reasons, or portrayals, for that order in a book and/or website, at the least, so that NT scholars can critique them if they wish. This has been done for the Modified Augustinian hypothesis. Of course, that would not guarantee that any NT scholars would care to comment on it.

    You should realize that if they were to comment, they would use redaction criticism, etc., degree of verbal agreement, etc., point out that Matthew also makes much use of "Son of man" and "humble servant," Mark of "King of the Jews," etc., and point out other interpretations of Revelations.

    So you would need to show why all this previous work is in error as well as setting out your own solutions.

     

  • At 12:09 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    It was said:

    “A further problem is that Joseph is referred to as ‘son of David.’ This wording was as incorrect within the Aramaic and Greek languages as it is for us today—to call someone a son when in actuality what is meant is ‘descendant.’”

    Response:

    The Greek word for "son," being "huios" was consistently used by ancient writers to either refer to an immediate male biological descendant or a further descendent down the lineage. In the same way, the Greek word for "father" was used either to refer to the immediate biological ancestor or a more distant ancestor. The ancient readers would have no doubt known this and would not have for once thought that this word in this context meant "immediate biological male descendant." There is no problem here in the original Greek usage of the word.

    Further meanings of "huios" as verified by Greek scholarship:
    1. A son
    2. Rarely used for the young of animals; generally used of the offspring of men in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
    3. Used in a wider sense as a descendant, one of the posterity of any one, such as “sons of Abraham”
    4. used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower, a pupil
    5. “Son of man”- term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality.

     

  • At 8:05 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben,

    I think you're correct here, thanks, with it being only in the TJ context (TJ 1:84 and Mt 1:20) that "son" would have its first meaning only. I.e., Jmmanuel was concerned that he not be misrepresented as being the son of the ET god (El), and hence used the word only in that sense, as did his ET contactors.

    However, "son of David" in Mt 1:20 can be criticized for another reason. Assuming that one couold indeed remember verbatim a conversation in a dream, the one who speaks to you in the dream wouldn't have to identify you! It's you and no one else that's being addressed in your own dream! So the angel in the dream wouldn't have had to call him Joseph by name, and certainly not "Joseph son of David." This, then, was the doing of the writer of Matthew. (In the TJ, the event was real, not in a dream, and he was just called "Joseph" by the ET.)

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home