TJ Comments

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

MORE DISCUSSION OF THE TJ VERSUS MATTHEW

The bottom segment has become rather full of lengthy discussions, requiring too much scrolling. So let us continue discussion of constructive criticisms and questions of the TJ here.

67 Comments:

At 3:24 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben asked:

"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?"

I don't know. Perhaps you've read my reasons for believing that the earliest writing, a chronicle, which was stolen, according to TJ chapter 14, long before it would otherwise have been concluded, was later recovered by Peter and John Mark and taken to Rome. And that the later writer of Mark had use of this recovered stolen writing.

So Mark ought to have the most accurate chronology, up to the point where that writing had been stolen. Yet, there are ample other indications that the writer of Mark sprinkled various pieces from this recovered stolen writing ahead of chronological order in his text (in order to "validate" a greater portion of his text and have it look different from Matthew, which he was otherwise so dependent upon).

And since the TJ, upon which Matthew was dependent, was written some years after the fact, Jmmanuel and Judas could well have forgotten the precise order of some of the events, and even have forgotten a few of them that we find in Mark.

But in many instances within TJ 8-10, or Mt 8-10, I'm uncertain whether Mark or the TJ has the truer chronological order.
At 3:48 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

your later comment, Ben, was:

"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?"

Eusebius's version says that "Matthew compiled [or collected or composed] the Logia in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

First, so much of Matthew involves J's healings and supposed teachings, and the passion narratives, none of which depend on the OT, that I don't think Eusebius would have had your thought in mind. But of course, the writer of Matthew did feed in as much OT material as he could, whether appropriate or not.

Second, I don't think that "and each interpreted them as best he could" would refer to difficulty in interpreting the OT passages, as their interpretation had been going on for a long time in rabbinical or similar writings.

Because of that latter phrase, I have wondered if the Logia didn't refer to the TJ itself, and the difficulty that the writers of Matthew, Luke and John had in trying to render orthodox the TJ's heretical and unacceptable passages.
At 6:04 AM , Ben said...

It was an ancient Jewish custom that a woman was considered to be man’s “wife” upon entering into the engagement period, before they lived together and before they slept with other. Evidence of this is contained throughout the very OT scriptures themselves to this day.

Deuteronomy 20:7 – “And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.”

Both Matthew and Luke refer to Mary as already being considered to be Joseph’s “wife” during the engagement period, which falls correctly in line with Jewish custom.

In the Talmud of Jmmanuel, however, the guardian angel says, “"Joseph, Mary is betrothed to you, and you are to become her spouse;” Interestingly, a couple sentences before, the narrator of the TJ says that Joseph “thought of leaving Mary before he would be married to her before the people.” Jewish custom would have recognized Joseph and Mary as already being married upon the betrothal. If it was determined that another man had slept with Mary, the Jews, in responding to their scriptures that they had in their day, regardless of whether or not their scriptures contained the truth, would have punished the man and Mary as violating the law of marriage:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife;”

This is why, in Matthew, Joseph was minded to divorce her, something which would not have been needed if she was not already considered to be his wife.

Wasn’t the alleged author of the Talmud of Jmmanuel Judas Iscariot, one who was raised under Jewish custom? If so, why wouldn’t Judas have recognized Mary and Joseph as already being husband and wife upon the betrothal, in accordance to the custom of the day?
At 8:43 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

There was then definitely a distinction between being betrothed and being married, just as even now. The TJ's presentation recognizes the distinction.

In Judas' narration of the story, he is presumably just speaking the facts as told to him by Jmmanuel, who in turn learned it from his parents and/or as supplemented by info from his contacting ETs. So it seems that Joseph and Mary weren't actually married until being recognized as such "before the people."

We have no reason to assume, however, that Joseph and Mary were devout Jews, in the sense of strictly following the Torah. I have no reason to believe that what the writer of Luke had to say about it, in Luke 1, holds any truth. There was some space for a diversity of religious views within Nazareth and Galilee (the land of the gentiles according to Isaiah 9:1). But whether Jewish or not, Joseph and Mary apparently followed the prevailing custom of recognizing the distinction between betrothal and marriage, with betrothal being considered more binding, as you say, relative to the marriage ceremony than in the present day.
At 10:13 AM , Ben said...

So for clarification since I am not proficient in German:

When you see the phrase "before the people," in the TJ. Does it likely mean:

"in front of people who are attending the wedding ceremony."

Or does it just mean...

"in the eyes of the people," meaning that the people know see them as being officially married.

It seems, based on your response, that you take it to simply mean the second one. Or is there, perhaps, another possible meaning or several meanings based on the original German?
At 1:10 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

In this context "Before the people" (vor dem Volke") means just as in your first option, "in front of people who are attending the wedding ceremony." From what I can gather from Google, the distinguishing part of the marriage ceremony itself was the taking of the bride from her father's house to that of the bridegroom or his father.

The phrase "before the people" does get used a bit in the OT, perhaps most notably in Ex 13:22, "The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people."
At 5:55 AM , Ben said...

Per Jewish custom, the segment of the marriage proceedings which were binding by law and which required the presence of witnesses, thus being “before the people,” occurred during the time of espousals. Often, a pledge was given for the bride, blessings from the parents were made, and the couple exchanged oaths. This then made the husband and wife “betrothed,” and officially recognized as husband and wife by the people. Both the TJ and Matthew seem to agree that these proceedings already happened since both record Mary and Joseph as being betrothed.

The segment of the marriage proceedings which “married” the couple occurred after the period of separation and after the taking of the wife from her father’s house into the home of her husband. The couple “married” by consummating the marriage in the private bed chambers of the husband. This certainly did not occur in the presence of witnesses or “before the people." Prior to the act of consummation, the couple was still considered to be betrothed.

Is there any evidence that an ancient writer, when referring to the segment of the taking of the bride into the husbands house, would refer to this as “‘marrying’ before the people?”
At 6:44 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

I strongly suspect that when the groom brought his betrothed from her father's house to his own house, this act was celebrated by friends as the "marriage". Whether it was celebrated at the bride's house, or at the groom's house or both, I wouldn't know. But human nature being what it is, I think some sort of celebration would take place "before the people" who were their friends or who were interested in seeing the new woman in the neighborhood.
At 8:52 AM , Ben said...

There has long been a controversy between those who have studied Matthew and Mark as to which person was right or wrong as far as chronological progression is concerned. Mark uses language that shows he was attempting to show all events in chronological order. Since nobody can verify if this is true or not at this time, one can only say he didn’t by calling him a liar. As can be determined by closely studying Matthew's work, it can be seen that Matthew in no way was using language showing that he was necessarily listing events in chronological order in certain passages. Particularly in J's Galilean Ministry, Matthew seems to hardly ever list events chronologically, but rather groups events by similar subject, based on what types of events are listed in what manner and the "when-phrase" argument.

First, here is an explanation of the "when-phrase" argument. Observe this crude example:

When Bob went to the supermarket, he purchased a pound of bread. When Bob went to school, he learned about history. When Bob came home, he played video games.

Here is what one can conclusively say, based on the when-phrases of the preceding paragraph:

Bob purchased a pound of bread shortly after he went or during his visit to the supermarket.
Bob learned about history shortly after or during the time he went to school.
Bob played video games shortly after or during the time when he came home.

Here is what one CANNOT conclusively say, even though one might ASSUME this:

Bob went to school after he went to the supermarket.
Bob came home after he went to school.

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

When Bob went to the supermarket on Tuesday, he purchased a pound of bread.
When Bob went to school on Monday, he learned about history.
When Bob came home on Saturday, he played video games.

Now, one knows that the events are not listed in chronological order. This is what is meant when it is said that the "when-phrases" do not necessitate chronological order. One can only conclude that the events tied to the particular "when-phrase" occurred at or near the time of the when-phrase indicator, but one cannot conclude that the when-phrase which follows the previous when-phrase occurred necessarily in chronological sequence. One would hope, however, that if a writer intentionally listed these out of chronological order that a purpose in doing so would be made clearly evident, which it is in Matthew.

Matthew uses these when-phrases when putting various events of the same subject side by side that are not in chronological order, as compared to Mark. One can see his purpose behind grouping the events in the particular order because they are of the same subject matter and that there is a certain progression and, perhaps, some spiritual lessons which can be seen.

Compare the "when-phrases" in Matthew with the TJ counterparts:
Matthew 8
Verse 1: "WHEN He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him."
Verse 5: Now WHEN Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him,
Verse 14: Now WHEN Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever.
Verse 16: WHEN evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed.
Verse 18: And WHEN Jesus saw great multitudes about Him, He gave a command to depart to the other side.

Talmud of Jmmanuel 8

Verse 1: WHEN he descended from the mountain, many people followed him. [good so far...]
Verse 6: WHEN Jmmanuel went to Capernaum, a centurion walked up to him with a request, saying, [still doing good...]
Verse 19: Jmmanuel came to Peter's house and saw that his mother-in-law lay sick with a fever. [OOPS!...]
Verse 21: In the evening, however, they brought to him many who were possessed; and he drove out the evil spirits through his word and made all the sick well.
Verse 23: WHEN Jmmanuel saw many people around him, he gave the order to go across to the other shore. [we're okay again...]

If one allows Matthew and Mark to have been before the TJ, it can be seen how the TJ author, when changing the book of Matthew, felt that all of these "when-phrases" were too redundant and so the TJ author decided to make a change to avoid too much redundancy. In doing so, the TJ author reveals that he or she had no idea how vital these “when-phrases” were and that the events were not at all being listed in chronological order but were rather grouped by similar subject matter and progression. This leaves a "conspiracy" behind between Matthew and Mark on chronological sequence that one would have to believe if he or she desires to believe that the TJ was the original that the gospel writers conspired against.
At 10:22 AM , Ben said...

A different look on Papias’ statement:
Papias is quoted as saying: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to avoid anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Deardorff then remarks:
Here, there is a definite suggestion that the writer of Mark did act improperly by setting down certain events in an incorrect order. But what is the reference order from which this writer deviated? It had to be the order occurring within some written document considered more primary than the Gospel of Mark, since oral tradition alone, outside of songs or chants, is scarcely capable of recalling all relevant events, much less of recalling their proper order."

Deardorff, in his article, makes the assumption that "in order" here ("in order," not "in exact order" is another rendering of the phrase by competent scholars) means "chronological" order. Other scholarship does not recognize this and the very statements which come from Papias immediately after the statement are further indications that "chronological" order is not in view:

Observe similar statements in the New Testament:
Luke 1:1 "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth IN ORDER a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:3 "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee IN ORDER, most excellent Theophilus,"

"In order," here in Luke's gospel, is connected to "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." Thus, it shows that somebody who can write things "in order" has wisdom and understanding and can present the information in a careful and orderly manner, specifically towards the needs of the intended audience (which in Luke's case, is Theophilus). This is precisely in line with the statement of Papias who is quoted, after saying that Mark did not write IN ORDER, "for he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him." What would the fact that Mark had never seen nor accompanied J have anything to do with Mark being able to list the events of J's life in chronological order? The statement by Papias shows that Mark was not on the same page as the others who accompanied J. They would have had more experience and knowledge from having accompanied J, but Mark did not have this. Thus, they would know what events in the OT scriptures were fulfilled based on their wisdom and understanding, and they would have had the ability to wisely and carefully relate this to the reader in a proper manner, unlike Mark. They would be able to structure the gospel in certain parts on a per subject basis, addressing each topic in an "orderly" manner, covering each topic in full before going on to another subject, rather that just listing every event in chronological order like Mark, leaving the reader to have to sort through all of the information themselves if they were looking for insight into a particular subject. This is what "in order" means. It means "orderly," not "in chronological order."

Papias further says: "But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings.

Here, Papias shows further support of what it is that he is saying and what he meant by "in order." He makes specific mention of Peter because Peter was one who was known to have accompanied J and would thus have had more experience and wisdom than Mark. Peter was able to "accommodate his instructions to the necessities of his hearers." In other words, Peter was able to convey "in order" or orderly, addressing the specific needs of his audience, the teachings and deeds of J, not just be able to list the accounts of J's ministry and life in chronological order. Nevertheless, Peter DID NOT have, as Papias states, an "intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings." This simply means Peter didn't intend to write anything that he taught down on parchment. If he did, he could have created an account that would have been "in order," like Matthew and Luke, able to accommodate to the needs of his hearers in a wise fashion. Since he didn't write anything down, Mark had to write his teachings down. Because Mark didn't have the wisdom and experience of Peter, he simply listed every event in chronological order while intending not to make mistakes, which would NOT accommodate specific needs of any reader.
At 10:38 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben, in what you discussed of Mark versus Matthew, most exegetes just speak of (the writer of) Mark being especially fond of using “And” (kai) over and over. The simplest interpretation, then, is that one event in Mark quickly followed the other that began with an “And”. OTOH, the writer of Matthew was fond of over-using the word “then” (Tote), which of course implies chronological order even more definitely than “And”.

But in Mark, “immediately” is used quite a lot relatively, too, suggesting that its writer was eager to write about “action” events. To me, it also indicates, along with other clues, that the writer of Mark was considerably younger than the writer of Matthew.

Concerning your comparison of Matthew 8 with the TJ 8, your “oops” comment on the lack of “When” or similar word at TJ 8:19, as an indicator of desire for lack of redundancy on the part of a fabricator of the TJ, overlooks the German. Its sentence starts out “And Jmmanuel came to Peter’s house…” In this case, therefore, it was the translator of the German into English who wished to remove the redundancy of too many “and”s. I was in on one of the early TJ English translations, and know that the editor wished to make it readable in English and consequently omitted quite a lot of the German “Und”s at the beginnings of sentences.

But in addition, your rendering of Matthew needs to have been closer to the Greek, which for that verse (Mt 8:14) is, in a straight transliteration: “And coming – Jesus – into the house of Peter, he saw the mother-in-law of him...” At this point, the writer of Matthew appears to have followed the TJ’s Aramaic quite closely, both starting with “And”. In addition, the translator of the Aramaic TJ into German apparently agreed with the German Bible’s 8:14 that it was suitably correct without needing to change any words (except Jmmanuel into Jesus).

Hence, for both the above reasons, I don’t see any merit to your “conspiracy” argument or anti-conspiracy argument.

If you were better acquainted with German I think you’d be arguing that a TJ author based his fraud upon the German Martin-Luther bible!
At 10:50 AM , Ben said...

The rendering is: "as Jesus was coming into the house of Peter."

This is the time indicator that separates this event from the previous event. Therefore, "he saw," as he was coming into or as he was entering the house. This in no way ties to the previous section or requires that he came into the house after the previous healing event, but it does in the TJ.

Would you like to propose a spiritual lesson or reason of progression for the events as recorded in the TJ which relate to the TJ's teachings in this chapter?
At 12:14 PM , Ben said...

A lesson on “name”:

To explain to those who say that the prophet who said His name shall be called Immanuel “contradicts” that they called His Name Jesus:

The phrase "call his name," as an ancient reader would take, it is not to be taken in the same way as the phrase "his name is," as a modern reader would take the latter phrase to be. The ancient phrase, "call his name" is not used just simply to denote what a person is designated as by others or referred to as by others; the phrase is used to describe who a person is. It does not just simply refer to what one is called, but who one is. To put it in a different way, here is an example:

Compare the phrase: "His name is called Mark" to the phrase: "He is called Mark."

The ancient reader would take both of these phrases to mean the exact same thing. This is because "he" is synonymous with "his name." In other words, "his name" (as the ancient would understand it) is NOT Mark. Rather, "his name" is called or referred to as Mark.

Compare the phrase: "His name is called Mark" to the phrase: "His name is Mark."

The ancient reader would NOT take these phrases to mean the same thing. They would take the first phrase to mean that you are calling a person by the designation of "Mark." But they would take the second phrase to mean that you are saying that the very personage or one who is designated as "Mark" is also described in characteristics or status or reputation as the word "Mark." In other words, the ancient reader would take the equivalent statement of "He is Mark" to mean that you are telling them that the person in question can be described as the word "Mark," whereas a modern reader who sees the phrase "He is Mark" readily assumes that you are just giving them the designation of the person in question and not attempting to describe the nature, position, characteristics, or purpose of the personage in question.

Let me explain it also in this way (here, I am asking a MODERN reader two very different questions in a way that a MODERN reader can understand:

"What is your name?" (A modern reader will instantly assume that I am asking them for the designation that everybody refers to them as)

"Who are you?" (Here, some people might assume that I am just asking for their designation, while others will understand that I am asking them to explain the kind of person that they ARE, whether it be by nature, position, characteristics, purpose, etc. They might answer: I am a man, or I am a president, or I am a poet, or I am a happy or good person, etc.)

Now, understand that if an ancient reader writes out the phrase: "his name is called XXX." They are answering the SECOND of the above questions. They are trying to show who the person IS, not just what they are designated as. While it is true that they are also designated as such, it is also true that ONE PERSON could have multiple designations. This makes the designations plural but the one person is still singular because he or she is still only one entity. Since the ancient writer and reader use the phrase "his name" to be the equivalent of the person himself, not the designation of the person, in other words, "his name" is the same as "he" or "him," the name remains singular for the personage himself is singular, though the designations of the name might be numerous. Here is an example as found in the same ancient writing in question:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name [singular] will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [plural-many designations]

Notice that it does not say His names will be.... This is because "name," taken as the ancient reader and writer would have taken it, does NOT mean "designation" as the modern reader would take it. It refers to the personage. One could write it as a modern reader would understand it to be as: "His personage will be called..." or "He will be called..." "Wonderful" is NOT his personage. "Wonderful" describes his personage and can be used to refer to the personage, ie. him. "Counselor" is NOT his personage. "Counselor" describes his personage and can be used to refer to the personage, ie. him. "Mighty God" is NOT his personage. "Mighty God" describes his personage and can be used to refer to the personage. "Everlasting Father" is NOT his personage. "Everlasting Father" describes his personage and can be used to refer to the personage. "Prince of Peace" is NOT his personage. "Prince of Peace" describes his personage and can be used to refer to the personage.

Isaiah also writes:
Isa 30:27 Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire: [Certainly the designation is not coming from afar, but the very personage is approaching]

Isa 50:10 Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God. [It is not possibly to put confidence in a designation, one must choose to put confidence in a person, which is in view here]

Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. [Here, name is certainly not what others refer to One as, since this name, this One, is from everlasting, a time when there was no one else around to call upon this personage]

The PERSONAGE of this one, thus the NAME of this one, as described by Isaiah, includes ALL of these characteristics, plus many more as the other Old Testament writers were trying to write. But this Personage, or this One, could not be adequately described by even hundreds of titles or other designations as Isaiah and the other writers of the scriptures consistently showed in their writings because the biblical writers believed that this Name, or this Personage, or this One was the creator of the Universe who was perfect and magnificent in all areas that the human mind could not even comprehend of.

Looking now at this phrase: "I am Jesus."

"Jesus" is NOT the "name" of this one ("name" being used in the sense that the ancient reader would take it to be.) The "name" of this one is the "I am" portion of the sentence. Thus, His name is "I am." "Jesus" is what "His name" is called. It is a designation, only one of which there are very many for this Name. This is what Matthew was trying to show.

The problem here does not lie with the Talmud of Jmmanuel. In no way does the Talmud of Jmmanuel, with its quotation and statements, contradict the truth which it is showing as would be understood either by the ancient reader or the modern reader. The Talmud of Jmmanuel was, like Matthew, trying to teach of the very personage of this one and that what he would be referred to as would also be a word that describes his very person, status, position, etc. The Talmud of Jmmanuel, however, does not further describe the person of this one as being "the Savior." Neither would the Talmud of Jmmanuel describe this one as the Mighty God or Everlasting Father, because the Talmud was showing that there is no higher force than Creation that needs no Divine Creator. The Talmud would certainly not agree that this personage was "the Savior" who came to "save His people from their sins." In this, it stands opposed to the teachings of Matthew, but it does not create a contradiction within itself the same way that Matthew does not create a contradiction within itself. The two texts merely disagree with each other.
At 8:44 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Yes, I think we agree that J saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying sick when or while or as he came into Peter’s house. We agree this separates it from the centurion’s-servant pericope, based on either the TJ or Matthew. Both imply but don’t make it certain that the “house of Peter” pericope occurred chronologically after the centurion’s-servant pericope, since “and” is not as definitive as “then” or “later” or “afterwards” would be. It is “and” that introduces Peter’s-house pericope in both the German TJ and Greek Matthew.

I presume the progression of events as written is as it was best remembered by J and Judas.
At 9:34 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Re your latest, lengthy comment: First, it’s best to refer back to Isaiah 7:14, or better, to the German TJ 1:87. Both say that she, referring to Mary, or they (referring to Mary and Joseph) would call his name Immanuel. This is in the active voice, not passive, whereas the writer of Matthew altered the Isaiah quote into the passive voice. The passive voice doesn’t say who does the naming, so it might admit the possibility that someone else named him Immanuel, perhaps at a later time. Then that opens the door to thinking that he might actually have been named “Jesus” at birth. But that reasoning would rely upon Matthew’s incorrect representation of the Isaiah quote as we have it in Is 7:14. So of course the writer of Matthew made sure that "he called his name Jesus" was in the active voice.

Second, both Isaiah 7:14 and TJ 1:87 say she or they would call his name Immanuel; neither says they would call his name “Jesus” or “Yeshua.” Therefore, the prophet in saying they would call his name Immanuel at birth does contradict any thought that they would name him “Jesus” or “Yeshua” at birth.

I didn’t see the relevance in the rest of your discourse, which, sorry to say, seems like a lot of hand-waving to me.
At 7:40 AM , Ben said...

The purpose of the discourse was to show the reader how strange it is that you concluded that what Matthew was writing was a contradiction or would not have made sense to the ancient reader who was reading it instead of consulting a Greek or Hebrew lexicon or comparing ancient contexts to understand what it was that Matthew was writing: that J was both “God with us” and “the Savior.” You then seem to believe that this “contradiction” was a result of editorial fatigue and went uncorrected for over 2,000 years and unnoticed by the ancient “church conspirators” until you notice it with your lack of understanding of the Greek. Again, the problem is in your analysis and not with the TJ.
At 7:41 AM , Ben said...

Deardorff’s charge of Mark’s ignorance of geography:
The charge was made that the disciples were already in the vicinity of Bethsaida when J
told them to cross the see towards 'Bethsaida.' The charge was then made that Mark was ignorant of geography because they were told to go where they were already located.

Response: There was likely a second city also called Bethsaida which many refuse to acknowledge that was in the vicinity of Capernaum, unless both John and Josephus conspired, in this case, to create this obscure lie. The disciples did head where they were told to go, Bethsaida being a small port near Capernaum. The very name "Bethsaida" simply means "house of fish" and would have been a popular name to give any harbor by a sea.

John makes a clear distinction at one point, saying: "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus." (John 12:21) John mentioned specifically "of Galilee," which distinguishes this Bethsaida from the one on the other side of the lake.

MARK 1
21. And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught....
29. And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

John 1:44
Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Mark show that Andrew's house was very close to Capernaum. John 1:44 shows that Andrew's home town was Bethsaida. John 12:21 shows that this Bethsaida was of Galilee. This Bethsaida, then, was located right next to Capernaum.

According to Josephus, the Bethsaida which most scholars acknowledge the existence of, where the five thousand were fed, was not located in the region of Galilee, but in Gaulanitis. Josephus would have known this well, too, since the region that was within his own jurisdiction was Galilee, and he commanded in Galilee. Nevertheless, one might charge Josephus of being ignorant of geography as well.

This adds much support to John's Bethsaida of Galilee being a separate Bethsaida from the Bethsaida of Gaulanitis. And these details answer those who want to say that Peter and Andrew moved from the "only" Bethsaida to a place in Capernaum.

Mark writes of the direction by naming the sea port, the specific location that they were told to go, John mentions the same direction by referring to the city which stood right next to it, without quoting where they were told to go.
At 7:41 AM , Ben said...

TJ discrepancy of the centurion account

Mt 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came (proserchomai) unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

TJ 8:6. When Jmmanuel went to Capernaum, a centurion walked up to him with a request, saying,

For those who have closely studied Matthew and Luke, it is easy to see how they remarkably agree and complement each other in showing that the centurion never walked up to J. Since this is so, why then does Matthew say that the centurion "came" to Jesus if he truly did not?

The Greek word that Matthew uses in his account is Proserchomai- meaning: to draw near to and to assent to (of your own choice, regardless of whether that choice is for good or for evil)

In order to "come" (proserchomai), it does not have to be in a physical sense, but it does have to be a result of one's own free choice as one's consent is necessarily attached to the Greek word of proserchomai. This is why there is no one good English word which properly translates this word. A good phrase which gives proserchomai its proper meaning is "freely draw near to," which, again, does not have to be in a physical sense but can be in a spiritual sense as it is used by the other NT writers:

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh (proserchomai) to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. [the Hebrew writer is not telling anybody that they can walk up to God who is in heaven in this verse.]

Heb 10:22
Let us draw near (proserchomai) with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. [again, “walking to” is not in view and faith is attached to it.]

1Ti 6:3
If any man teach otherwise, and consent (proserchomai) not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
Here, the word certainly has nothing to do with "walking" to anyone or any place. [this passage shows the free-will aspect attached to proserchomai.]

A way to proserchomai to him, as the other NT writers have taught, is to do so by faith and in a spiritual sense. So Matthew, in using this word, does not contradict the details of Luke. If Matthew had used a word that necessitated a physical moving and appearing, such as Paraginomai or Erchomai, which are words that Luke used, then a genuine contradiction would appear here. But he does not. Notice how Luke records it:

Luke 7:4- "And when they (the messengers sent by the centurion) came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:"

The Greek word used here is Paraginomai-meaning, to approach or come near (the assent is NOT attached to it, so it is simply used in a physical sense, regardless of one's purpose for coming). A person who was simply following orders would not necessarily have had his free choice in the matter of this coming. This Greek word could rightly be translated as "walked to."

Luke 7:7- "Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed."

The Greek word used by centurion himself is Erchomai-meaning, to come from one place to another and to make one's appearance (so once again, a physical arrival is necessarily in view). This word could rightly be translated as "walked to."

We see, then, that Matthew and Luke complement each other and do not contradict each other. The centurion did not feel worry to "walk to"-erchomai J so he sent messengers who "walked to"-paraginomai with the very words that the centurion gave them to speak. In doing so, the centurion was the one who "drew near"-proserchomai to J by his faith. It cannot be determined why Luke would create false details of the centurion not coming physically to Jesus as part of some massive conspiracy. What purpose would this minor detail have in spreading the teachings of Christianity? He was a historian and was concerned with the facts. But Matthew either shows his purpose for omitting the others who came physically for him or else reveals that he didn’t know whether the centurion came or not but if this is so, he does not leave behind language that shows a genuine contradiction.

The people who were sent by the centurion did not come in faith but simply with the message of the centurion who had faith. Thus, the messengers are not important in Matthew's account and are disqualified by their unbelief. They were simply message deliverers. Matthew account shows the power of representation by a ruler in according to Matthew’s primary purpose of revealing kingship and teaches a spiritual lesson of what it means to "come" to Jesus. The centurion "drew near" (proserchomai) to Jesus by the method of representation in sending his messengers with words that he assented to, coming from his own mind and heart of faith. If the messengers also came to Jesus of their own choice, desiring to be forgiven, then they may have been included by Matthew. But they did not come in faith and Luke confirms this.

In looking at this from the perspective that Matthew and Luke preceded the TJ, evidence is left behind that the TJ author did not having a sufficient background of ancient Greek and did not pick up on this very minor detail while editing Matthew’s account and assumed that the "came" must have been in a physical sense without carefully comparing the account to Luke's. In doing so, the TJ author makes an error by saying that the centurion “walked up to” Jmmanuel. Again, if one wants to believe that there was nevertheless a "conspiracy of the church" regarding this minor detail, they must believe that a very strange conspiracy which went to great lengths on such a minor detail occurred here. If one would like to propose the details of such a conspiracy or state that Matthew’s language contradicts Luke’s language or make the charge that Luke went out of his way to contradict Matthew, a response to the proposal or charge shall be given.
At 8:20 AM , Unknown said...

Observe these outlines:

Matthew 8
1-4: J HEALS the Leper
5-13: J HEALS a Centurion’s Servant
14-15: J HEALS Peter’s Mother-in-Law
16: J HEALS those who were demon-possessd
16: J HEALS all who were sick

Mark 1

21-22: J TEACHES in the synagogue
23-28: J HEALS in the synagogue
29-31: J HEALS Peter’s Mother-in-Law after coming out of the synagogue
32: J HEALS all who were sick
32: J HEALS those who were demon-possessd
35-39: J PREACHES in Galilee
40: J HEALS the Leper (somewhere in Galilee)

One must know Luke's chronology well to note that Luke places the healing of the Centurion’s Servant last in chronological order compared to these events of Mark.

Now, Mr. Deardorff, you graded papers in college, correct? Which writer here do you believe was more likely to have grouped events by subject matter and progression and which person more likely wrote his narrative in chronological order?
At 9:07 AM , Ben said...

Yet another TJ chronological error:

Matthew 13:54-58
When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

If one is familiar with the chronology of the events in the synoptic gospels, and if one knows why Matthew chose to group the events from chapters 5 through 13 in the manner that he did, being by subject matter and progression., it is easy to understand why Matthew finally inserts the account of J’s second rejection at Nazareth in this section. (Hopefully Deardorff can give this explanation as well since he has studied the TJ for over 20 years and the events are in the exact same order as Matthew) Once again, we have a time indicating phrase which does not necessitate chronological order. To be fair, if the TJ cognate is translated correctly, it also contains the time indicating phrase that is found here in Matthew. Nevertheless, the TJ author makes it perfectly clear that he or she believed that this event falls next in chronological sequence. This statement after the narrative insertion, as found in the TJ, is:

TJ 16:1
“At the time when Jmmanuel was staying in Nazareth, news about him reached Herod.”

The TJ author could not be clearer in showing that he or she believed that this section of the narrative showed Jmmanuel returning to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve. None of the 3 gospel writers have J returning to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve. All agree (including the TJ) that the sending out of the 12 would have caused Herod to learn of the news about Him. If one understands why Matthew grouped his narrative from chapters 5 through 13 in this manner, it is seen that he desired to give the reader a full understanding of the teachings of J, then J’s works, then people’s reactions to J, then the response of his disciples to J, all before letting the reader know that J was then rejected by his own people. Mark, in recording events simply in chronological order, does not prepare the reader full before revealing Nazareth’s, J’s own town, rejection of J. Matthew, who writes his narrative “in order,” meaning orderly and not chronologically, makes the reader more informed of who this one was before revealing his rejection by his own. The reader would be able to more properly respond to this rejection having been more informed.

Matthew then correctly agrees with Mark, after his narrative insert is finished, that “at that time” Herod had heard of J. J, after being rejected by his own, leaves Nazareth and all 3 gospel writers never have him returning. J is recorded as going from village to village in Mark, but neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke seem to know where he was at the time of Herod receiving the news. Why in the world would Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been unsure of this if they were copying from the TJ? Why would they omit such an obscure detail as part of the massive “church cover-up?” Why would they all three agree that J never returned to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve if the TJ showed he did? What are the odds that Matthew cleverly turned the TJ’s account into a narrative insert, rather than the “original chronological progression of events?” Why is the TJ the only one standing out on this minute detail?

Conclusion:
The TJ writer had no idea that when he or she was changing the details of Matthew’s account that he or she was editing a narrative insert at the moment when Matthew has finally reached the high point of his Galilean ministry narrative, after which he then beings to write of events in chronological order once more. Because of this, the TJ author thought that the “at that time” of Matthew was while J was hanging out in his own city again after his second rejection.

Read Deardorff’s comments on Matthew 14:1-4 to see that Deardorff also has no idea that this is a narrative insert and nevertheless concludes with the TJ that the order of TJ events is correct because of his theological commitment that the Plejarens exist; therefore, the TJ is correct.
At 9:58 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

At the time Judas wrote the TJ, with Jmmanuel’s help or dictation, the Gospel of Luke had not been written, nor Matthew nor Mark. So of course he wouldn’t have needed a background in Greek in order to do his writing in Aramaic.

There is every reason to believe that the writer of Matthew at this point utilized the TJ’s Aramaic without change, except perhaps altering its Aramaic into Hebrew in the narrations. The German text of Matthew here, in the ML bible, uses the same wording as does the TJ, in saying that the centurion walked up to Jmmanuel, or stepped up to him, or approached him – however you prefer the translation of the German “trat.” When Hebraic Matthew was set into Greek, then the verb (proserchomai) was used, to indicate respect shown to an important person when approaching him. An Aramaic word of similar meaning may have been used in the original TJ.

The writer of Luke, when utilizing Hebraic Matthew, used a different verb for it when writing his gospel in Greek, in which he altered the story by having others come to “Jesus” rather than having the centurion himself beseech him directly. The latter is apparently what caused the writer of Mark to omit the story -- a gentile shouldn't have to come crawling up to a Jew, the writer of Mark felt, and say he (the gentile centurion) was unworthy to have J come under the roof of his house.

No lengthy, hand-waving Christian apologetic is necessary to explain it. The centurion did come physically in body up to Jmmanuel to ask for his help. The text in the Martin-Luther bible on Matthew agrees with the German TJ text. Martin Luther, in using both Greek and Latin texts for his translation, had gotten it right.
At 11:16 AM , Ben said...

Your quote which identifies your assumptions:

"When Hebraic Matthew was set into Greek, then the verb (proserchomai) was used, to indicate respect shown to an important person when approaching him. An Aramaic word of similar meaning may have been used in the original TJ."

Would you like to present proof that a Hebraic Matthew or an original Aramaic document ever existed in the first place, instead of relying on "Semjase said so?"
At 11:34 AM , Ben said...

PS-
I am also curious as to why Jehoiakim was also omitted by the TJ author in the genealogy in the same manner that Matthew omitted him.
At 1:11 PM , Ben said...

The Harmony of Matthew and Luke’s centurion accounts:
Let each person observe the harmony between Matthew and Luke’s account of the centurion and determine if the centurion truly came to J, as the TJ records, or if the TJ is incorrect in this manner. Matthew shall be abbreviated MT and Luke shall be LK.

LK 1 Now when He concluded all His sayings in the hearing of the people, He entered Capernaum.
LK 2 And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die.
MT 5 Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him,
LK 3 So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant.

(Note: it as already been said earlier that “came” in the Greek, which Matthew uses, does not necessitate a physical appearance but does require a free-willed choice.)

MT 6 saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”
LK 4 And when they came to Jesus, they begged Him earnestly, saying that the one for whom He should do this was deserving,
LK 5 “for he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue.”

(Note: it is clear from what Luke records in his verse 6 that each time some came on behalf of the centurion, they spoke as if they were the centurion, simply relaying his very own words to Jesus. Here, we see that what Matthew has quoted is being said by perhaps one of the elders who is speaking as the centurion, and then after this statement, the group gave their own pleas on behalf of the centurion as recorded in Luke.)

MT 7 And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”
LK 6 Then Jesus went with them. And when He was already not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying to Him, “Lord, do not trouble Yourself, for I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof.
MT 8 The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.

(Note: Here, we see that Jesus spoke to the centurion by giving the message of “I will come and heal him” to the elders who then rushed ahead of Jesus and relayed this message to the centurion. The centurion then responds to Jesus by sending friends with the answer as recorded in both Matthew and Luke. Notice how in Luke's account the friends speak as though they are the centurion, thus standing as representatives.)

MT 9 For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
LK 7 Therefore I did not even think myself worthy to come to You. But say the word, and my servant will be healed.
LK 8 For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

(Note: Here we see that both Matthew and Luke record essentially the same statements but in different orders. The fact that they do not quote everything in the exact same manner is evidence which can allow one to conclude that they were not using the same one source when writing their accounts. That they do not contradict each other, however, is also evidence that there separate sources agreed with each other and were reliable)

MT 10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!
LK 9 When Jesus heard these things, He marveled at him, and turned around and said to the crowd that followed Him, “I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”
MT 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
MT 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

MT 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour.
LK 10 And those who were sent, returning to the house, found the servant well who had been sick.

(Note: Here we see the message that was given to those who were sent to be relayed to the centurion. Based on the centurion’s statement which was relayed by the friends, Jesus acknowledges that the centurion believed. He then speaks to the friends, acting as representatives, as to the centurion who then return and find the centurion’s servant well.)

Let each observe this and determine a few things.
1. Is it likely that Matthew and Luke would have cleverly used language that made it seem that they were not using the same sources as each other when they in fact were?
2. Is it likely that both of these accounts would harmonize in this fashion if Matthew and Luke didn’t intentionally try to manipulate it together?
3. Is there any good reason why Matthew and Luke would have had to manipulate the centurion’s appearance in the account together in order to spread Christianity?
4. Is it a coincidence that Matthew happens to use language which does not necessitate a physical appearance of the centurion while Luke, who has the elders and friends being sent, does use such language?
5. And what about the TJ which does have the centurion making a physical appearance?
At 3:17 PM , Ben said...

The reason why Deardorff has been able to come up with his explanation in his own mind about why Mark “omitted the account of the centurion” is because of his full belief that Mark must have had the TJ in his hands and that the TJ is presented in chronological order. If only there was enough space on this blogger to give a fuller description of what scholarship has determined of chronological sequence by carefully comparing all 4 accounts, something which Deardorff has not done and will likely never try to do since “the TJ just has to be right and all other accounts are liars.”

For those who want to test what scholarship has determined concerning chronological sequence of events, here are the locations of Js travels written out by careful comparison of all 4 accounts and by allowing the writers to say what it is that they are saying instead of writing all of them off as lying conspirators:

After J heals Peter’s mother-in-law, he then began his first preaching tour of Galilee. (MT4:23-25;MK1:35-39;LK4:42-44)
He then healed the leper in Galilee.
(MT8:1-4; MK1:40-45; LK5:12-16)
He then returned to Capernaum and healed a paralytic.
(MT9:1-8; MK2:1-12; LK 5:17-26)
Then Matthew was called in Capernaum.
(MT9:9-13; MK2:13-17; LK5:27-32)
Then the disciples were defended via a parable in Capernaum.
(MT9:14-17; MK2:18-22; LK 5:33-39)
Then, J went to Jerusalem for the second Passover and healed a lame man.
(JN5:1-47)
The plucking of the grain then precipitated the Sabbath controversy en route to Galilee.
(MT12:1-8; MK2:23-28; LK 6:1-5)
Then, the withered hand being healed caused another Sabbath controversy in Galilee.
(MT12:9-14; MK3:1-6; LK 6:6-11)
Multitudes were healed next near the sea of Galilee.
(MT12:15-21; MK3:7-12; LK 6:17-19)
The twelve apostles were then selected after a night of prayer near Capernaum.
(MK3:13-19; LK6:12-16)
Then came the sermon on the mountain near Capernaum.
(MT5:1-7:29; LK 6:20-49)
We then have a sequence of events outlined chronologically by Luke in his seventh through the beginning of his eighth chapter where the scene begins in Capernaum with the healing of the centurion’s servant, then the scene changes to Nain, followed by Galilee, then returning to Simon’s House near Capernaum, then proceeding on to Galilee, and then finally ending up back in Capernaum where Mark continues where he left off at the selecting of the twelve apostles with J being accused of blasphemy.

Nobody should believe this outline without investigating it for themselves, carefully observing the language that each writer uses to determine what the chronological sequence of events were, allowing each writer to be competent in this matter instead of just saying they all must be wrong or were lying. If after doing this, one can agree that this was the likely sequence of events based on what is written and the logic in the paths that were followed, it is easy to see why Mark did not “omit” the account of the centurion. This healing in Capernaum was during a later visit to Capernaum than the visit that Mark was recording of in his first chapter. There are absolutely NO events during this chronological time period that are recorded by Mark, yet they are recorded by Matthew and Luke, where Luke uses language to show progression of chronological events but Matthew arranges his narrative by subject consistently from his 5th chapter through the end of his 13th.

Based on this evidence, one can conclude that Mark did not have access to any of these chronological events when he wrote his gospel but that only Matthew and Luke did. Or, one could conclude that for whatever reason, Matthew and Luke commanded Mark to omit all of these events, which would seem to be necessary if all details came from one master document and Mark just happened to record none of them during this sequence.

But only you can decide for yourself.
At 5:25 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben asks, Would you like to present proof that a Hebraic Matthew or an original Aramaic document ever existed in the first place, instead of relying on "Semjase said so?"

A strange question! You seem to have confused a Hebraic Matthew with the TJ. Surely you know something about the existence of a Hebraic form of Matthew attested to by Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine and others. That testimony was dismissed by a majority of NT scholars nearly a century ago, as they prefer that Matthew have been written first in Greek. However, what they had referred to is known as Hebraic Matthew, which came before canonical Matthew. It was not much different from canonical Matthew.

For the existence of the original to the Aramaic TJ, there is a possibility that that is what Papias referred to as “the Logia” when stating, via Eusebius, that “Matthew compiled the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and each interpreted them as best he could.“ The fact that there was some difficulty in interpreting some document that Papias knew about, perhaps referring to interpreting away heresies in the source document by the writers of Matthew, Luke and John, is what fuels this possibility. But otherwise the sentence is far too terse to say anything conclusive about.

If you seek “proof”, that means you wish to see the original Aramaic TJ writing itself. But you know that that was destroyed in 1974. But nevertheless, that is what you’re after?

I think you must settle for the word of the surviving co-discoverer of the TJ, Eduard “Billy” Meier, if indirect proof of Matthew’s dependence upon the TJ does not suffice. Many who came to know Meier have testified to events they witnessed that prove to them that he is a genuine UFO contactee. You can find references about 87 of them, and what they witnessed, and their names, here: www.tjresearch.info/witness-list.htm.
Do you contest the honesty of any of them in describing what they saw?
At 7:14 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben wrote, "I am also curious as to why Jehoiakim was also omitted by the TJ author in the genealogy in the same manner that Matthew omitted him."

The probable answer is likely the one you don’t wish to hear, Ben. You could consider stating it the other way around. The correct genealogy was traced or kept track of by Jmmanuel’s ET contactors, who kept track of the correct names also. The writer of Matthew then followed the TJ here, in omitting Jehoiakim, provided the Jechoniah in Matthew is equated to Jojachin in the TJ, which seems to be quite a stretch. There was a "Jehoiachin" (who was evil) in that line, according to 2 Kgs 24:6,9, which name sounds much closer to Jojachin, since the second "j" in the TJ's Jojachin has an "i" sound.
At 7:47 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben wrote: "The reason why Deardorff has been able to come up with his explanation in his own mind about why Mark “omitted the account of the centurion” is because of his full belief that Mark must have had the TJ in his hands and that the TJ is presented in chronological order."

Anyone who has looked at all closely into my website knows that it's stated more than once that the writer of Mark had had no access to the full TJ. One doesn't have to be a scholar to notice that Matthew makes heavy use of the TJ, Luke makes direct use of a few fragments of it, John makes less direct use of a few pieces of it, and Mark no use of it (probably because its writer was in Rome).

What the writer of Mark can be seen to have had access to is the stolen chronological short document reported in TJ 14, apparently recovered by Peter and/or John Mark and carried with them when they went to Rome. E.g., see The External Evidence (scroll down to "Peter & Mark's document in Rome"). Decades later, after Matthew appeared, the writer of Mark in Rome obtained use of the recovered stolen document that had been stashed away there, and utilized it in forming his own gospel that was based otherwise upon Matthew.

Ben, you're too far off the mark here for me to try to set you straight.
At 6:14 AM , Ben said...

Mr. Deardorff,

Jehoiachin was the Hebrew form of Jechoniah which is the Greek form. Thus, they are one and the same person which no Hebrew scholar would contest. Jehoiakim was Jehoiachin's father. Jehoiakim also was evil and much of his history is contained in the OT. Do you contest the existence of Jehoiakim?

Here is what I don't understand about the Billy Meier case. I can see why the Plejarens may not have allowed the original Aramaic document to be left behind or else, after it having been destroyed, why they did not go back in time and grab a copy of it to preserve it and give to Billy untouched.

But is there even a copy of the Aramaic that is in Billy's or someone else's possession? If not, I cannot understand why the Plejarens would not even allow an exact copy of the Aramaic to be left to be studied. This is quite suspicious. If there isn't one, then we must treat the German as the "original" in the same manner that Matthew's Greek is the "original." The statements of of early fathers do not necessitate that a full Hebrew document ever existed. Hebrew fragments that were pieced together is a possibility. If Matthew compiled Hebrew fragments to make his Greek text, the Greek would still be considered to be the original compilation.
At 6:14 AM , Ben said...

Now that the above explanation of chronological sequence has been explained, it is hoped that those seeking to decide for themselves whether the TJ was the original master document that the gospel writers used or not will analyze those sections as well as note the following:

The sequence of events during this chronological sequence which Matthew records but not Mark is in these sections of Matthew, arranged by the chronological sequence of Luke in his seventh and the beginning of his eighth chapter:
(Matthew Chapter 5 verses 1 through Chapter 7 verse 29)
(Matthew Chapter 8 verses 5 through 13)
(Matthew Chapter 11 verses 2 through 30)

Now, if one wants to hold to the idea that the Talmud of Jmmanuel is the master document that the gospel writers used, it is important to hold to one of these options:

OPTION 1: Independent Coincidences
1. Matthew noticed that the arrangement of the TJs events just happened to be in an orderly sequence by subject and progression even though the language of the TJ seemed to show chronological progression. He then just decided to tweak the language of the TJ here and there so that the events would not necessitate chronological progression.
2. By Deardorff’s analysis, Mark was created next before Luke. Mark then must have got his hands on Matthew’s tweaked and distorted account unless he just happened to independently record the exact same similar distortions of Matthew. Mark then decided to omit every singe detail from MT 5:1-7:29, even though he would have known that these details would have been precious to his readers. Mark then chose to omit MT 8:5-13, the healing of the centurion’s servant which just happens to fall in the future chronological sequence “invented by Luke.” Mark then randomly chose to omit every single detail found in MT 11: 2-30, which would also happen to fall in the future chronologic invention.
3. Next came Luke, who must have had both the TJ and Matthew since many events of the TJ just happened to be recorded by Luke alone while Matthew just happened to pick the other ones so that the ones unique to Luke would have had to have been independently distorted by Luke. Luke just happened to then pick and chose events from the TJ while adding more events of his own and then fabricated a “fake chronological sequence” which just happened to contain every single detail not found in Mark, making it “appear” that Mark didn’t have access to any event or detail in this time period. Thankfully, Matthew had already tweaked the language of the TJ so that chronological sequence would not have been necessitated, allowing the grand scheme of coincidences not to leave any strange evidence behind.

OPTION 2: Grand Chronological Conspiracy
1. Matthew noticed that the arrangement of the TJs events just happened to be in an orderly sequence by subject and progression even though the language of the TJ seemed to show chronological progression. He then tweaked the language here and there so that the events would not necessitate chronological progression with the intent that a future chronological conspiracy would occur, making it appear that he had a better idea of what he was doing as compared to the TJ author.
2. Mark was then ordered by Matthew to omit all of these events so that a future “fake chronological sequence” could be invented later by Luke as part of the efforts to spread the new teachings of Christianity, leaving behind evidence that would cause conclusions to be made that Mark did not have access to the events of this time period.
3. Luke was then informed by either Matthew or Mark about the chronologic sequence of events that he was to fabricate. Luke took these sections that are widely separated in both the TJ and Matthew which just happened to be arranged in an orderly manner by subject and progression and invented the fake chronological sequence while including more events of his own not found in the TJ that he would also distort which would give future generations false evidence as to why Mark did not have any details of any of these sections in the TJ or Matthew.

First, let each person decide for themselves if holding one of these views would take logical reasoning or a leap of faith. Then, let each person who desires to hold that the TJ is the grand master document that the gospel writers distorted decide which of these views holds best for them. If one cannot hold either of these views, here is another option:

1. Matthew had access to sources that gave him his information. He knew what he was doing when he arranged the events in the particular order that he chose.
2. Mark did not have access to any events during this true chronological time period when he wrote his gospel.
3. Luke had access to different sources than Matthew which agreed with the details of Matthew and which allowed Luke to know what the sequence of events were; he could not have known the sequence simply from looking at Matthew. Luke chose to present these details in chronological order.

Mr. Deardorff, would you like to give your response before the people as to which view holds best for you? Or can you provide a logical different view?
At 6:47 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben wrote, "But is there even a copy of the Aramaic [TJ] that is in Billy's or someone else's possession? If not, I cannot understand why the Plejarens would not even allow an exact copy of the Aramaic to be left to be studied. This is quite suspicious."

The Plejarens did not go to the effort to have the original be preserved, after they knew that enough of its translation into German had been accomplished, apparently for the same reason that
UFOs have not, since the phenomenon came into view after WWII, left enough evidence behind in any one case for all to see so convincingly that scientists would suddenly be forced to believe what they are not yet prepared to believe.
At 5:27 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

In one of his posts I haven't previously replied to, Ben wrote:

"Why would they all three [Matthew, Mark and Luke] agree that J never returned to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve if the TJ showed he did? What are the odds that Matthew cleverly turned the TJ’s account into a narrative insert, rather than the 'original chronological progression of events?' Why is the TJ the only one standing out on this minute detail?"

It starts with Matthew, and should be clear from the disclosure that the TJ gives, which I've discussed under Mt 14:1. Matthew's alteration of "At the time Jmmanuel was staying at Nazareth" to "at that time" then allows Ben's conclusion: Matthew doesn't have J returning to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve. However, it's interesting to deduce why the writer of Matthew made this alteration -- why he omitted mention of Nazareth at this point because of its residents' disdain for the truth (or because of their unbelief as expressed in Matthew), which caused J to not show great signs of his spiritual power there. So the name of Nazareth was unworthy to put in writing at that point. Nazareth had to be "punished" for this embarrassment. Hence, from Matthew one doesn't know that J had returned to Nazareth after sending out the twelve.

Without the TJ on hand, one might never have suspected that a phrase was omitted here containing "Nazareth." However, its omission at Mt 13:54 has been noted (e.g., F. Beare wondered why it was not explicitly mentioned there). Now we can be quite sure that it was for the same reason it was omitted 5 verses later.

The writer of Mark altered Matthew's account somewhat in dealing with this section. He does not seem to have realized that Matthew's account, from 14:3 to 14:12a had started out as a flashback. (The TJ's account clearly is a flashback from TJ 16:3 to 16:17a, but the writer of Mark had no access to the TJ.) So he wrote it as not being any flashback by changing John's disciples, who found out where J was and went to him to tell him the news of the beheading, into the twelve apostles returning from having been sent out. Additional motivation for that was so that when J then went away to a lonely place apart in Matthew (as if in fear for his own life), no such connotation could be drawn from the Markan account, in which the apostles, instead of J, go away to a lonely place. Thus, from Mark one doesn't know that J had returned to Nazareth after sending out the twelve.

The writer of Luke apparently could see some problems with Mark's different account from Matthew on this matter, and had a better solution for dealing with Nazareth's unbelief. He placed a totally altered version of it early in his gospel, at Lk 4:16-30, in which J was forced out of town for a reason having nothing to do with any deficiency in his spiritual powers. Thus, from Luke one also doesn't know that J had actually returned to Nazareth after sending out the twelve.
At 8:22 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

In another of Ben's discourses he quoted from one of my web pages, regarding what is known of Papias's writing on Mark:

"Here, there is a definite suggestion that the writer of Mark did act improperly by setting down certain events in an incorrect order. But what is the reference order from which this writer deviated? It had to be the order occurring within some written document considered more primary than the Gospel of Mark, since oral tradition alone, outside of songs or chants, is scarcely capable of recalling all relevant events, much less of recalling their proper order."

Deardorff, in his article, makes the assumption that "in order" here ("in order," not "in exact order" is another rendering of the phrase by competent scholars) means "chronological" order. Other scholarship does not recognize this
...."

However, any reader can notice that I did not mention chronological order. Ben was quite wrong here. The point is, and my point was, that the order of some events in Mark was stated to be wrong by Papias, and from this it is deduced that it was wrong relative to the order of events written in some prior definitive document. This prior document is then deduced to most likely have been Matthew.

Papias may well have had chronological order in mind here. But there is and was no need to make that assumption, so I didn't make it. The proper order, which the writer of Mark violated, was whatever order of pericopes existed in the prior document he was referring to.

This statement from Papias as presented by Eusebius remains evidence favoring Matthean priority over Mark.
At 8:35 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

In another of Ben's comments, he corrected me by saying, "Jehoiachin was the Hebrew form of Jechoniah which is the Greek form. Thus, they are one and the same person which no Hebrew scholar would contest."

Having looked now more into the matter, the equation of Jehoiachin with Jechoniah does seem to be correct, or most likely correct.

Both names, incidentally, seem to be Hebrew, at least according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary. The Jeconiah name, however, could also be the English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Jeconiah or Jechonia.
At 6:44 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

To Ben,

If you intend to continue with more comments, and lengthy comments, how about emailing me first regarding what your next comment will be about -- give it a short title -- then I can open up a new entry on my blog using that or similar heading for it, and you can then insert your comment, to which I could reply and you then counter reply, etc. That way it would be easier for readers (and us, too) to locate discussions on a given topic, which can be very far ranging in scope, as you know in covering the entire TJ.

Otherwise, if you have your own blog, you could be presenting your views and analyses on the TJ there, and I could comment upon them. Do you have a blog?
At 7:08 AM , Ben said...

Master Chronological Conspiracy or TJ Author’s Ignorance?:

If only this blog allowed the creation of diagrams…

It has already been stated that Matthew chapters 5 through 13 are arranged by subject and progression. It has been noted that the order of events in the TJ are presented in remarkably the same order as Matthew with various omissions and inserts. The question still remains… who came up with this order, Matthew or the TJ? If Matthew came up with the order and knew what he was doing, did the TJ author catch this as well? It has already been noted the extreme set of coincidences or intentional falsifications on all 3 gospel writers, just talking about chronological progression and no other details, that would have been necessary to change J’s return to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve, into no return at all. It has already been noted that both the TJ and Matthew agree that the sending out of the twelve would have caused Herod to hear of the news. All this, then, leads us up to the next amazing and much more elaborate set of extreme coincidences or collaborative chronological conspiracies that were necessary to change the day that is the “same day J went out of the house and sat by the sea” (Matthew 13: 1; TJ 15:1)

Since this blog is small, I will try to present the information as concise as possible to guide those in their own investigations of chronological sequence if they so wish.

Matthew 12:1 is a critical point where Matthew, if he is the original author of his book and knew what he was doing, reverts to a previous time period. Did Matthew get this idea from the TJ which would be necessary if the TJ was the original since all events in TJ chapter 13 have their counterparts in Matthew 12:1-15? In other words, did the TJ author know that he or she was reverting to a previous time at this point or else that a massive chronological conspiracy would occur to change the timing of this event?

Note: Matthew 12:16-50 is not at all found in the TJ at this point. The TJ instead presents a chapter where Judas Iscariot repents and follows the teachings of J and it is explained how he will be wrongly accused for centuries. It is important to note that all of this is presented in the TJ as occurring after J sent out the twelve at some time later which “came to pass” (TJ 14:1) and before J “returns to Nazareth” which has already been noted to need a chronological conspiracy between all 3 gospel writers as well as the “playing dumb” on all 3 of them as well. So after the twelve were sent out and after this secret trip to Bethlehem which is set forth as being covered up by the church, we then have the “that same day” in the TJ Chapter 15 which much tie to a time period after the trip to Bethlehem which has occurred after the twelve were sent out.

Now, it must be concluded that somebody was copying and changing from the other at this point. The likelihood of this lining up with Matthew’s “same day” of his 13th chapter should be so unlikely for anybody to consider. Here is the unique item of interest: Matthew’s “same day” ties to his previous event of his mothers and brothers, an event which is not found in the TJ. Did Matthew invent this event or else insert it here to “replace” time when J and his disciples went to Bethlehem? If so, another extreme set of chronological coincidences or conspiracies is needed because both Mark and Luke also record this event found in Matthew and remarkably agree that it occurred before the two demon-possessed men were healed, before the girl was restored to life and the woman healed, before the blind man was healed, before the mute men spoke, and before J sent out his twelve disciples which caused Herod to learn of him. Thus, Matthew’s “same day” occurs before the sending out of the twelve and the TJ’s “same day” occurs some time after.

Question 1 to ask yourself: is it amazing that events of the TJ line up so well with Matthew and one seems to be reverting to previous time periods, having two other witnesses supporting the time periods while the other seems to think that these series of events occurred chronologically? Question 2: if the TJ author does revert to a previous time period at the critical point of Matthew 13: 1; TJ 15:1 is it possible that a major chronological conspiracy occurred to make the “same day” a period long before such a visit could have occurred by the invention of events by Matthew at critical junction which tie in to this “same day” points and the following of two other independent writers in remarkable agreement apart from him? [I shall try to provide more details of the necessary conspiracy or extreme circumstances towards this later, trying to make it concise and presentable.] Question 3: Is it possible that a secret trip to Bethlehem could have occurred after the sending out of the twelve AND before the sending out of the twelve at the same time? Which author do you think knows more about the sequence of events than the other author?

Look into this for yourself and then decide.
At 7:18 AM , Ben said...

Mr. Deardorff,

If you would like to set up comment blogs for each individual section of you site, I shall post my comments in each one.
At 7:32 AM , Ben said...

And Deardorff has already given his answer for the next circumstance:

Deardorff said:
However, the phrase "that same day" is probably not to be taken literally, as Beare inferred when saying it was a stock phrase of introduction. In the TJ's story, Jmmanuel had just previously been in Bethlehem and in the desert nearby (with Judas Iscariot). Thus it would have been more than a day's walk from there back to the Sea of Galilee, or even down to the Dead Sea.

Response: To be more precise, it was over 70 miles to the Sea of Galilee from Bethlehem and fifteen miles from Bethlehem to the Dead Sea. So here, we see Deardorff having to make an excuse for the TJ. Not only do the other two gospel writers have the event with the "mothers and brothers" at an earlier time, but they all have the event right next to the Sea of Galilee. Thus, J's walking out of a place in Bethlehem and coming to a sea makes it highly suspect of a TJ manipulation of events and misunderstanding of chronological progression. But J's walking out in Matthew and seeing a sea makes perfect sense and there is only a "problem" if the conviction that J was in Bethlehem cannot be removed.
At 8:20 AM , Ben said...

Deardorff said:

"Matthew's alteration of "At the time Jmmanuel was staying at Nazareth" to "at that time" then allows Ben's conclusion: Matthew doesn't have J returning to Nazareth after he sent out the twelve."

Response:
Matthew's statement of "at that time" brings the reader back to the flow of events that left off at the time where Matthew inserted the details of the past rejection of Nazareth into his narrative, which just happens to be at the moment where the TJ records it chronologically against all 3 synoptic testimonies.
At 9:05 AM , Ben said...

In case any are still confused about how to look at a document and determine if the subjects are arranged by chronology or according to an author’s intended purpose, observe this crude example which will use the Billy Meier Case:

Sequence 1
1. an unimpressive photo event occurs
2. impressive landing tracks are found
3. a most impressive metal specimen is analyzed
4. most impressive sound recordings are heard
5. unimpressive sound recordings are heard
6. impressive video footage is produced
7. an impressive photo event occurs
8. an unimpressive metal specimen is analyzed
9. most impressive landing tracks are found
10. amazing video footage is produced
11. unimpressive video footage is produced
12. impressive sound recordings are heard
13. a most impressive photo event occurs
14. unimpressive landing tracks are found
15. an impressive metal specimen is analyzed

Sequence 2

1. an unimpressive photo event occurs
2. an impressive photo event occurs
3. a most impressive photo event occurs
4. unimpressive sound recordings are heard
5. impressive sound recordings are heard
6. most impressive sound recordings are heard
7. unimpressive landing tracks are found
8. impressive landing tracks are found
9. most impressive landing tracks are found
10. unimpressive video footage is produced
11. impressive video footage is produced
12. amazing video footage is produced
13. an unimpressive metal specimen is analyzed
14. an impressive metal specimen is analyzed
15. a most impressive metal specimen is analyzed

Now in this hypothetical situation, say you are given 2 and only 2 choice for simplification. One sequence is in chronological order and the other sequence is in a carefully structured order by the author. Which one would you most likely choose to have been structured carefully by the author?

Homework: Look at Matthew chapters 5 through 13 and see if the very structure is likely fully chronological while observing that the TJ seems that it is.
At 7:53 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

In one post above, identified by 6:14 a.m., Ben asked,

"Mr. Deardorff, would you like to give your response before the people as to which view holds best for you? Or can you provide a logical different view?"

This was in regards to sequences of events in the TJ, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Comparison of the TJ against Matthew has indicated very strongly that the TJ was the source of Matthew.

The TJ has further given strong clues as to what motivated the writer of Mark to form his gospel, with which a comparison of the sequence of pericopes in Mark relative to Matthew is very consistent.

With this as guide, the solution I favor to the Synotpic Problem is given by the Modified Augustinian Hypothesis. This should more than answer Ben's question above.
At 5:18 AM , Ben said...

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, a brief explanation will be given 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 limit for the chronological progression of the previously recorded event. 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 recorded 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. The context as well as the other reports must be examined to determine the location of event C on the timeline. As such, “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 sequence on the grand timeline of events. Other limits that have been set by other authors in their reports must be used.

Now, at any time during this outline of chronological sequence of events, one might feel free to say to themselves that 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 just on 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 chronological sequence of all reported events without contradicting each other. Here, then, is the pertinent sequence of events of the Galilean Ministry of J that will be used to determine whether the Talmud of Jmmanuel fits into and agrees the sequence or else contradicts the sequence. 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’s Beheading of John the Baptist.

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.

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. 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 of Galilee 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; MK 1:29-34; LK 4: 38-41)
Reason: Mark and Luke brought us here. Marks’ “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” shares 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.

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 about all 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.

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 indicator as well as the absence of Matthew’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.

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 in Matthew 9:1-14 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 and Matthew’s “then the disciples of John came to him saying” of verse 14 both agree with Mark’s limit.

11. The Disciples are Defended by a Parable (MT 9:14-17; MK 2:18-22; LK 5:33-39)
Reason: Matthew, 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. Matthew progresses forward to a much later time so Mark and Luke have priority.

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 verse 1 sets a much later limit than the ones already set by Mark and Luke which, therefore, have priority.

13. Plucked Grain Precipitates Sabbath Controversy (MT 12:1-8; MK 2:23-28; 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 to 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 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 to 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 to before J being accused of blasphemy. This limit is superseded by Luke’s “and he came down (from the mountain)” 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 to 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 to before J healing the centurion’s servant.

NOTE: Matthew’s “when he had come down from the mountain” is a time indicator to note 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.

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, takes 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 chapter 8 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 had gathered” of verse 4 is a time indicator which cannot necessarily be used 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 has 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, bring 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 come to 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 to 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 brought us here. After the mother and brothers sought an audience while J was in the house, they may have sought 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; therefore, it could apply to the former event.

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 MT 8:19-22. Mark’s “then they came to the other side” of chapter 5 and verse 1 sets a limit to 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 8:28-34; MK 5:1-20; LK 8:26-39)
Reason: Matthew, Mark, and Luke brought us here. The “and behold” 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. Jairus’ Daughter is Healed (MT 9:18-26; MK 5:21-43; LK 8:40-56)
Reason: 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.

32. 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.

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

34. 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 reverted back to this event in his narrative.

35. 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 Mark 6:14 sets a limit before Herod’s beheading of John. Luke’s “now Herod the tetrarch heard” agrees with Mark’s limit.

36. Herod Beheads John the Baptist (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 which reveals the chronological sequence of reported events 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. 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 when deciding which 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 then tries to piece together the rest of the puzzle pieces provided by the other authors that “contradictions” 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 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. 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, what are the chances that such a grand timeline of events could have been left behind which requires the careful comparing and investigating of all 3 synoptic accounts for one to “discover” and what are the chances that no author on any single occasion would have used language which contradicts the above sequence of events?”

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 authors had the exact same purpose as the other when choosing to group the events in the particular order that they 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 of the TJ’s, especially in Matthew chapters 5 through 13 which have their TJ cognates, did the author of the Talmud of Jmmanuel create the above sequence 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, does the Talmud of Jmmanuel’s language contradict the above sequence? 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 gospel accounts which have passed through history for nearly 2000 years? If the Talmud 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 CCCs are that there was either a Clever Chronological Conspiracy or a Coincidental Chronological Cover-up. These will be explained in detail but first, let’s see if the Talmud of Jmmanuel contradicts the sequence.
(stay tuned)
At 6:58 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben,

Your comment was way too long. I'll need to delete any others you may post of any such length. Instead, please refer to a url of your own, and its particular reference there, where you could post such matter.

Now in setting up your CCC alternatives you have omitted the plausible results that redaction criticism has been able to produce in the past century or two. You have omitted the likelihood that each gospel writer harbored motivations for having made the alterations he did in the gospel(s) which preceded his own.

You have omitted the work of all who have preceded you. That's neither scholarly nor scientific.

Your assumption that each gospel writer wrote down valid information devoid of his theological need for having altered the sequence and/or content from that of his source(s) is untenable.

Thus I see much more plausibility in other solutions to the Synoptic Problem, especially in the Modified Augustinian Hypothesis, than in either CCC.
At 8:10 AM , Ben said...

Mr. Deardorff,

Will you, at all, address issues concerning the "big picture” towards the elaborate alleged church conspiracy?

If you cannot address the bigger issues presented or even consider confronting them, will that not reveal close-mindedness created by theological commitment? Such thinking, if it is indeed so, needs to be shown to those who desire to hold to what you say. You believe that what you hold to is the truth, correct? Should “the truth” fear confronting any issue that is thrown at it if it is indeed the truth?

The likelihood of successful editorial actions by all 4 gospel writers without creating contradictions of chronological flow is very pertinent towards the "big picture" of the alleged church conspiracy that you hold to. The next essay will then suggest all weaknesses of the TJ which will then lead to the proposal of the editorial actions taken by the author of the TJ towards the book of Matthew. Knowledge of chronological harmony of all reported events is necessary to see this; therefore, it had to be presented to the reader before proceeding.

Can you present any arguments that refute any of the reasons towards the harmonized events of chronological sequence that have been presented?

If you would like to set up a blog that addresses general comments towards “the church conspiracy,” which directly ties in to your section where you discuss Papias and the others and which you also suggest all throughout each chapter discussion of the TJ with your various comments on alleged theological commitments of the church which lead to such revisions, I will present my thoughts towards the alleged conspiracy there. These arguments do tie in to what you present, there is just no one section where comments can be addressed on this. After this, in time, I will address your specific arguments on each chapter.
At 1:41 PM , Ben said...

Deardorff has said:
Here we see in listing B that the extended region of relatively good agreement of order commences around Mk 6:12 and Mt 14:1, two chapters later in Matthew than we noted from listing A. This demarcation using Mark as the standard is known to scholars, but they have no reason for it other than that perhaps the writer of Matthew suddenly became tired of rearranging Markan material at this point!

Response:
The whole purpose of my outline was to show that there is an obvious answer to Deardorff's question. This answer has been given by MANY scholars, all of whom have been obviously ignored by Deardorff in his efforts. Matthew was the one who took liberty to list events out of chronological order. Mark always follows chronology and Luke largely does. Matthew is the one who deviates until chapter 14. The reason for Matthew's deviation will be given in response to Deardorff's question in a future post. The outline is entirely relevant towards answering Deardorff's criticisms in the priority of Matthew or Mark.
At 6:49 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben

What you call a church conspiracy I (and others) consider to have been, first, ignorance and confusion on the part of Paul during A.D. 33-60, and second, lack of honesty on the parts of the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John when they, circa A.D. 115-130, placed maintaining their early Christian faith and personal agendas above seeking & preserving the truth. None of that has been avoided by me, but is all covered here.

Your particular harmonization of the Gospels is just one of many such endeavors over the centuries, which omits all considerations of redaction criticism.

Your avoidance of any critique of the Modified Augustinian Hypothesis just indicates your adherence to the hypothesis of Markan priority.
At 10:31 AM , Ben said...

Mr. Deardorff,

Your quote of "adherence to the hypothesis of Markan priority" is flawed in a couple of areas.

1. If Matthew was written in 70 A.D. and Matthew chose to group events out of chronological order, he could have done so by his own investigative means.

2. If Mark was written in 90 A.D. and the author of Mark chose to group events in chronological order, he could have done so by his own investigative means.

Mark is used to line up the other accounts because it was written with the purpose to present events in chronological order, as can be seen by studying the language that he uses. The fact that Mark presents everything in chronological order does not at all prove that the gospel of Mark was written before Matthew or that Matthew was copying off of and rearranging the material in the gospel of Mark.

No "Markan priority hypothesis" comes into play at all here.

If somebody was to write another book on the Billy Meier case and presented all events in chronological order using their own investigative means, would it be logical to use this to "prove" that the book was written before UFO Contact from the Pleiades Vol. 1 and that the author simply rearranged material presented in the earlier book to his own random liking “just to be different?”

Mark follows the chronological path entirely. This in no way tells us whether he wrote the gospel before or after Matthew or that Matthew used Mark and rearranged the material. This does tell us Mark’s PURPOSE in writing his gospel in the manner he did.
At 7:18 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben said:
"Mark follows the chronological path entirely."

This is your assumption. I've presented reasons why the writer of Mark altered the chronology he found in his sources.

"This does tell us Mark’s PURPOSE in writing his gospel in the manner he did."

The Modified Augustinian Hypothesis gives two excellent reasons as to what prompted the writing of Mark.
At 7:02 AM , Ben said...

It has been criticized:

Mt 1:22 “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:”

THE PROBLEMS.
Matthew's phrase "all this took place" indicates that what its writer had just described did actually happen, and some time in the past. However, the angel in Matthew was speaking not of a birth in the past but of a birth to take place in the future, and of what the son would do in his future. These events had not yet transpired. A dream had supposedly taken place, but not "all this."
Additionally, Davies & Allison noted that, in the Greek, the same "formula" with almost the same wording is used in Mt 21:4 as in this verse. This indicated to them that both verses are obvious editorial remarks—redactions.

RESPONSE:
I am not sure why some have supposed that Matthew 1:22 is a statement by the angel, but the context clearly shows that it is not. “And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins,” (ASV) is the final statement made by the angel. The next verses, 22-25, are passages where Matthew has resumed his role as narrator within in the story. Therefore, when Matthew, the narrator, states, “Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,” (ASV) the phrase “all this is come to pass” is Matthew telling the reader of his narrative that, as of the date that the reader was reading about these events, all of these events had, in truth, already happened. In Matthew, verse 22 is not the angel telling Joseph that the birth had come to pass.

Allowing this to be the case, why then is Matthew charged with editorial redaction for explaining to his readers that the events they were reading about had already taken place as of the time that Matthew wrote his account and that the events occurred in order for prophecy to be fulfilled? Are there not many times when the author of the TJ, in acting as narrator, makes explanatory statements apart from the dialogue within the story that are directed to his reader, such as “There they dwelled in the city called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken by the prophets would be fulfilled, "Jmmanuel shall be called the Nazarene?” (TJ 2:29)

Isn’t your criticism of Matthew here only valid by forcing Matthew’s narrative explanation to his reader to be a quote by the angel as the TJ’s non-cognate of this verse has it?
At 8:53 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

It's quite evident that Mt 1:22 is a piece of the writer's own narrative. We don't disagree there.

However, did Joseph's resolve to divorce Mary (from betrothal) take place in fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy? Mt 1:22 said it did (ALL THIS took place). But clearly Joseph's resolve to do that did not help the prophecy along, and was not part of the prophecy. The writer's error here is what can easily happen when fabricating a redaction.

But thanks for you comment; I've revised "The Problems" section there to make it more coherent.

Also awkward is Mt 1:18b where Mary is referred to as the mother of her fetus.
At 11:46 AM , Ben said...

Your comment:

"did Joseph's resolve to divorce Mary (from betrothal) in any way help to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy?... clearly Joseph's resolve to do that did not help the prophecy along"

Response:

How can you be certain that Joseph's decision not to divorce Mary did not help the prophecy along? Mary and Joseph were living in a time when the community would have stoned a person to death for committing the act of adultery. If Joseph had divorced Mary, whether publicly or privately, and, if privately, word still leaked out that the divorce occurred as a result of Joseph thinking that Mary had been unfaithful to him, Mary MAY have been stoned to death in response to this. If she had been stoned to death before the baby was born, than she would not have been able to bring forth a son to fulfill the prophecy. We do not know that word ever leaked out about Joseph’s thoughts, and Joseph certainly did not divorce her. Instead, he listened to the angel and responded appropriately so that Mary would not have to face such danger, and the baby could be born.
At 6:03 AM , Ben said...

TJ 1:81 - Joseph was the husband of Mary, THE MOTHER OF JMMANUEL, who was impregnated by a distant descendant of the celestial son, Rasiel, who was the guardian angel of the secret.

MT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When HIS MOTHER MARY had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Your Problem:
“in 1:18 the phrase "his mother" is awkward, thus raising suspicion of the context having received redaction, because Jesus had not yet been born or named; i.e., Mary is referred to as the mother of the fetus.”

Response:

In both cases, the writers are identifying to their readers Mary as being the one who gave birth to J. This would have been a historical fact at the time each writer was writing their account, regardless of whether or not the birth occurred within the narrative at the time of mentioning that Mary was his mother. The TJ, in fact, mentions that she was his mother before mentioning the impregnation.

Also, the gospel writers do not make a distinction between a fetus and a newborn. The same Greek word used for a newly born babe is used of the one when he is still in his mother’s womb. It would seem, then, that a woman was a mother of a child shortly after conception and not just after birth (perhaps even the 3-week period after conception given by the Plejarens might apply). A woman who lost her child before it left the womb would still be deemed as the mother of that child who had died.
At 6:48 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

"How can you be certain that Joseph's decision not to divorce Mary did not help the prophecy along?"

OK, stated in that manner, that's a valid criticism. My point was that since Joseph soon afterwards was convinced he should not leave his betrothed after all, the result was the same as if he had not resolved to divorce Mary in the first place. Hence this private incident was not a part of Isaiah's prophecy.

If he had not made the short-lived resolve to leave her, the result would have been the same -- Joseph would still have been Mary's husband and Immanuel's step-father. Yet, it was an incident worth mentioning, as being a not unexpected reaction of a man who learns his betrothed was impregnated by another.
At 7:01 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

"In both cases, the writers are identifying to their readers Mary as being the one who gave birth to J."

OK. Revision made.
At 6:10 AM , Ben said...

Mt 3:7 7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"
THE PROBLEMS. This is the first verse in Matthew in which Pharisees and Sadducees are mentioned. Why then are they referred to as the Pharisees and Sadducees, as if the writer of Matthew was already aware of their presence in this section of his gospel?
Response:
The use of the word “the” does not necessarily mean that Matthew was acknowledging them to already have been present within the narrative. Nevertheless, “the” does imply that a familiarity must already exist about the Pharisees. It is true that modern readers might not readily be familiar with who the Pharisees and Sadducees were, but modern readers were not Matthew’s originally intended audience, the Jews. The Jews would have been very familiar with whom and what kind of men the Pharisees were since they lived under their authority on a daily basis and, therefore, would have needed no explanation. While modern readers might need an explanation which does not occur here, they will nevertheless learn about what kind of men the Pharisees were as they read the account.
An example of this would be if I would write a letter to you about “the” Plejarens. Since you would be my intended audience, and I know that you are already familiar with the Plejarens, I would not need to write out an explanation of them to you. I would simply refer to them the first time that I mentioned them in my letter as “the” Plejarens. However, if I was writing a letter to those who had never heard of the Plejarens before, then I would certainly give an explanation of them beforehand.
That John the Baptist starts out rebuking these Pharisees and Sadducees without there being any mention of any prior provocation could also show that John the Baptist, having come in contact with these men on many prior occasions, was already familiar with what kind of men these were and knew what their motives were for coming, even though the reader might not have known this at this time. Shortly after this, though, the reader finds out why they had come. They were not coming to be baptized and to repent but were coming, instead, to justify themselves, owning Abraham as their father as the means of their justification. John’s question to them may very well have been rhetorical, suggesting to them that they really should have heeded the many warnings that they had received not only from the writings of the prophets but also John, instead of still continuing to stand on the ground of their own righteousness.
At 8:41 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

The phrase "many of the Pharisees and Sadducees" in Mt 3:7 invites the question "which Pharisees and Sadducees are you talking about?" Ones from Jerusalem? Ones who may have been stalking John recently? One doesn't know, since they hadn't been previously mentioned or introduced. It thus raises suspicions that the "the" was unthinkenly inserted by the writer because of his own familiarity with the source text he was editing.

Then, too, the writer's intended audience probably knew that Pharisees and Sadducees didn't generally move in the same circles, as the latter didn't even believe in resurrection, while tending to be in more of the leadership roles of the Temple than the Pharisees. Hence to speak of "the Pharisees and Sadducees" without previous mention, as if they typically traveled around together, is sufficiently unusual as to cause one to suspect that the writer felt already familiar with their being together at this time in the story from having just read it in the text which he was editing.
At 11:01 PM , Ben said...

Mt 1:20 But as he [Joseph] considered this, behold"
TJ 1:83-84 While Joseph was thinking in this manner, behold"

Mt 1:20 "Indem er aber also gedachte, siehe" (Luther Bible)
TJ 1:83-84 "Indes Joseph aber also gedachte, siehe"

The "Problem" per Deardorff:
"One objection is that what Joseph was told does not seem to have been within a dream, because it occurred WHILE Joseph was still considering to divorce Mary; i.e., WHILE his mind was awake."

Response:
A more proper literal translation of Matthew's phrase is "But having_thought_on these_things, behold..." or "But after_he_thought_on these_things, behold..." (See: NIV, NASB, ASV, RV, HCSB). [The “_” is used to connect English words used in the translation where, in the Greek, there is but only one word.] There are only two words in Matthew's original Greek text that make up the phrase "having_thought_on these_things," which are: ejnqumevomai tau'ta. The word "ejnqumevomai," appears in this verse as an aorist participle, and thus is concisely and rightly translated as "having_thought_on." If Joseph, in Matthew, was still doing the thinking as the angel appeared to him, then the Greek text would have it as a participle perfect. Similar aorist participles showing completed actions occur in MT 1:22 with the “is conceived” (she certainly was not still conceiving) and in MT 1:24 with the “when Joseph woke” (he finished waking and then did as he was told).

Therefore, the "having_thought_on" shows that Joseph's thinking in this manner was a completed action. Matthew, then, simply decided not to include details of Joseph falling asleep since these details are not important towards Matthew's purpose. Nevertheless, one knows in Matthew that Joseph fell asleep by the appearing of the angel that occurred within a dream, not while Joseph was still awake. It is important to note that the word for dream used by Matthew here is "onar," meaning a dream of divine origin, such meaning which is found in even secular ancient texts like Homer's Iliad. Even in the time of Plato, the Greek word "onar" was regularly used not to refer to a mental activity or its "product" (i.e. the dreaming activity reified), but rather to the thing or things which appear to one while one is asleep, which might be more real and independent of one's thought processes than the things which appear to one while awake. These kinds of dreams (onar) were of such a different nature than typical dreams and would have been easily recognized by the one who had the "onar" as being different from the usual dreams, being sufficient to warrant an immediate response by the recipient.

Nevertheless, Luther, when he translated Matthew, has it as "while he was thinking in this manner” and not as “having_thought_on.” Therefore, Luther’s translation does not show a completed action as Matthew’s Greek but one which is still occurring, am I correct? The TJ, it seems, happens to have it almost precisely the same way as Luther once again.
At 8:41 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

"Luther’s translation does not show a completed action as Matthew’s Greek but one which is still occurring, am I correct?"

Yes, I think so. The German "indes" doesn't have a meaning of "after", but only "while", which it can mean, does justice as a translation.

"The TJ, it seems, happens to have it almost precisely the same way as Luther once again."

Yes, as if Luther almost knew that the writer of Matthew had altered it? Interesting, anyway. I've sometimes wondered if Luther had access to the Hebraic Matthew or a translation/transcription of it different from the Greek translation that became our canonical Matthew. I.e., perhaps the writer of Hebraic Matthew left behind more clues from his (TJ) source than we now have, which clues later translators altered or did away with for greater consistency with orthodoxy. if so, however, Luther went along with the changes in content I would deduce between Hebraic and canonical Matthew.

There are three other TJ verses that were translated into English as past-tense gerunds (if I have the correct terminology), at 26:34, 34:14 and 34:31.
At 8:50 AM , Ben said...

A Problem Noted on Matthew 3:11:

"Now, in Matthew it is the Pharisees and Sadducees whom John is baptizing. However, in all the rest of Matthew, Jesus never baptized Pharisees and Sadducees, whether with the Holy Spirit and fire or with water. So this verse may be classed as another example of Matthean "fatigue." After making his alteration in what John said, and in continuing to make many other alterations to the TJ's material, the writer forgot to invent a later verse that would demonstrate Jesus baptizing Pharisees and Sadducees."

Response:

The "problem" here arises as a result of J being disallowed to be who He originally said He was. When John the Baptist of Matthew’s account preached that J would baptize people IN the Holy Spirit and IN fire (“with" is a poor translation), John was not speaking of times that would occur before the crucifixion. Since Matthew’s account ends shortly after the crucifixion and since the first baptism that John referred to occurred some time after the crucifixion while the second baptism has yet to occur, this is why Matthew’s account does not contain them and why he wouldn’t have invented them within his account. Regardless of whether one desires to believe the Bible to be true, it is important to note what the Bible shows in regards to these baptizms. J was recorded by the NT writers as baptizing the church IN the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, recorded in the book of Acts (some hold that each believer is baptized IN the Holy Spirit the moment they believe and are saved). J, in a future day, will baptize unbelievers IN fire when they are cast into the lake, according to the book of Revelation. Thus, John the Baptist was speaking to a mixed multitude on that day and drew a line of demarcation between those who believed and those who did not. When John said "he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit," he was referring to those among the crowd who believed. When he said "(he will baptize you) in fire," he was referring to those among the crowd who would die in their unbelief.

Interestingly, the cognate in the TJ seems to have the "fire" also applying to those who receive the truth. It would seem, if the TJ is based on Matthew, that either its author desired the statement of John to look like it had been misconstrued into a negative statement instead of the original "positive" one, or else the author of the TJ did not understand the statement in the first place. Of course, since the word “baptize” literally means "to submerge," and thus the statement is to be taken as "he will submerge you in fire," it is strange that such an expression would be used as a metaphor to describe someone receiving the knowledge of the human spirit in the first place.
At 11:36 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Re Mt 3:11, Ben wrote:

"...When John the Baptist of Matthew’s account preached that J would baptize people IN the Holy Spirit and IN fire (“with" is a poor translation), John was not speaking of times that would occur before the crucifixion. ..."

This was supposedly John speaking, not the writer of Matthew. The people John spoke to had no inkling of who J was, they had no inkling of a crucifixion this unknown person would undergo. They also didn't know that there would supposedly be a special event some year on Pentecost day, in which this unknown person would baptize them in the Holy Spirit and fire, whatever that would mean (fire of hell?). None of this would make any sense to John's listeners, none of whom apparently even asked him to explain it. However, it is understandable as redactions made by the writer of Matthew to the TJ account, which is quite coherent. He had to insert the "spirit of God" in place of anything to do with the individual human spirit, and he would not wish to mention "truth." Followers of the early church weren't supposed to question the truthfulness of any of its teachings or ritual sayings.
The Matthean account was therefore incoherent to John's listeners, and hence not likely genuine.

Ben wrote: "Interestingly, the cognate in the TJ seems to have the "fire" also applying to those who receive the truth."

The TJ's "with the knowledge of the spirit and with the fire of truth" makes good sense, slightly better than if "in" had been used. It means that J would imbue interested listeners with knowledge about the human spirit and with basic truths that consume evil falsehoods as with fire consuming trash.

The original point still stands, of course. John spoke these words to Pharisees and Sadducees, who needed to have their false beliefs, which they imposed on others, exposed for the sake of truth. But Jesus never baptized Pharisees and Sadducees in the Holy Spirit and fire or in water, as Matthew's writer indicated he would.
At 8:29 PM , Ben said...

The word "baptize" of the Greek means:
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk), to cleanse by dipping or submerging.
The clearest example that shows the meaning of "baptize" is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped'(bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution.

This definition, to submerge, was clearly the meaning of "baptize" 200 years before J was even born. Therefore, the phrase "baptize with," regardless of whatever follows it, would not have made any sense to an ancient reader. You can "submerge" something "in" a substance, but how do you "submerge" something "with" a substance? The very expression would imply a "mixing" of something with a substance, not a "submerging" of something in a substance and destroys the very meaning of the word "baptize." This, though, is what has happened to the word over the centuries, its original meaning having been distorted. Many have cited the church's doctrine of the sprinkling of infants as a cause for the lost meaning of the word.

One would think that if the author Judas was an ancient writer of those days that he should have known the proper usage of the word. When both the King James translators and Luther made the expression as "baptize with," they were already living in the times of the changed doctrine. So in the TJ, either John said it wrong or Judas wrote it wrong if the TJ is, indeed, the original and has not been distorted here from the use of the Luther Bible. The metaphor using "baptize," then, suggests that Jmmanuel will submerge people in a molten lake of fiery truth in order to rid them of their false teachings....
At 10:15 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

"In" indeed is appropriate for baptizing in water, into which one is dipped or submerged. However, when used in a more abstract sense, "in" is not necessarily appropriate. Jmmanuel here, in dictating to Judas what John had said, was here using the word in a different, more abstract sense for which "with" is just as appropriate as "in". So why object to the use of a different preposition here, when the medium involved wasn't a fluid? Is your objection only because this was the first time chronologically in the literature that you can find "with" used following "baptize" (assuming the TJ writing of this verse dates to mid-1st century and that the Aramaic used "with" rather than "in")?

John was apparently quite creative, as he apparently could utilize concepts or words in new ways (baptizing into something other than water). So also Jmmanuel and/or Judas was creative, e.g., as the word "talmud" was apparently used by them for the first time, when as far as we know the previous usage was only of "talmid" meaning scholar or pupil, and "limmud" meaning "disciple" or "disciples".

So I wouldn't know if it was John for sure who first used "with" in this context in Aramaic, or Jmmanuel when dictating to Judas, or Judas, or Martin Luther when translating his sources into German. Probably the latter is the more likely, since the Greek that came from Hebraic Matthew uses "in," assuming the writer of Matthew didn't alter an Aramaic "with" in the TJ into "in."
At 6:36 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

This is getting hard to follow. My last sentence above presumes Ben's assumption that the writer of Matthew used "in", and either changed the TJ's "with" to "in", or found "in" already there in the TJ. In that case, one would only have Martin Luther to blame for the alteration or recovery of "with."
At 1:27 PM , Ben said...

To answer your question:

"So why object to the use of a different preposition here, when the medium involved wasn't a fluid?"

As already noted, it is only possible to "submerge" something "into" a substance, whatever that substance might be. Therefore, the biggest objection here isn't with the preposition used in the metaphor but rather the verb that was used in the first place. Your explanation of the statement: "that J would imbue interested listeners with knowledge about the human spirit and with basic truths that consume evil falsehoods as with fire consuming trash," actually seems to be what the author of the TJ was trying to say. But "imbue" is nowhere close in meaning to "baptize." Therefore, if the TJ contains the original statement of John, then John should have used a better verb to get his point across. “Permeating” someone with knowledge that burns in the mind like fire is a good metaphor to describe the teachings of Jmmanuel. However, the use of a statement showing the “submerging” of someone in a lake of fiery truth in order to metaphorically describe the piercing of someone's mind with truth that burns like fire, seems very awkward to me. Even though people might not like what John says in Matthew or want to believe what John says in Matthew to be true, it, nevertheless, makes sense. Those who believed were literally submerged in Holy Spirit when it was poured out at Pentecost as recorded in Acts; therefore, “submerge” was very appropriate to describe this even though the medium was not water but Holy Spirit. And the prophecy of Revelation literally shows unbelievers being submerged in a lake of fire in a future day, which only adds further details to John's statement in Matthew which directly follows his statement of the submerging in Holy Spirit and fire. The word "submerge," then, is appropriate to explain both of these things. The fact that "submerge" seems awkward as used in the TJ seems to leave evidence that its author was trying to change something that originally made sense but that he or she didn't agree with into something else that he or she did agree with and likely also shows that the author did not know the original meaning of the word “baptize.” This must be a fault of one of the authors of the documents and not John since both of them record John as using the word "baptize." It's the expressions that follow which create the difficulty. But I suppose that if one thinks that a person being submerged “in” a lake of fiery truth is a good metaphor to describe teachings that permeate the mind and burn like fire, then they are free to hold to this. However, somebody being submerged “with” anything would never make sense under any circumstance.
At 6:45 AM , Jim Deardorff said...

Ben wrote:
"As already noted, it is only possible to "submerge" something "into" a substance, whatever that substance might be. Therefore, the biggest objection here isn't with the preposition used in the metaphor but rather the verb that was used in the first place. Your explanation of the statement: "that J would imbue interested listeners with knowledge about the human spirit and with basic truths that consume evil falsehoods as with fire consuming trash," actually seems to be what the author of the TJ was trying to say. But "imbue" is nowhere close in meaning to "baptize." Therefore, if the TJ contains the original statement of John, then John should have used a better verb to get his point across."

This was John the baptizer speaking. So it was quite OK for him to use the same verb that his listeners expected from him but in an extended sense of meaning. He knew that his learned listeners -- Pharisees and Sadducees -- as well as the others, would understand his meaning, just as we do.

He could also speak of separating the chaff from the grain, and know that within the context his listeners would easily understand.
At 12:48 PM , Ben said...

The Criticisms against Matthew 4:1-11:
"This is the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Beare (p. 105) noted that, even symbolically, one probably should not think of the wilderness as the abode of the devil, which this story does. His abode was supposed to be in Hades."

Response:
The Bible states that Satan has the ability to walk to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it (Job 1:7) and that he walks about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8); therefore, it does not matter what his permanent abode is. Satan can go just about anywhere and be found anywhere until the appointed time. J did not enter the abode of Satan, but rather, J entered a place where J would be weakened, being without access to food, water, or shelter. Therefore, Satan used this opportunity and came to where J was, thinking J's weakened state might cause J to waver, after having been following J since the baptism which we know happened since Satan, too, heard this one called "the Son of God." (MT 4:3) The Spirit knew that Satan would do this.

Further Criticism:
“Even a casual reader can spot the contradiction of God's spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil himself, whereas Jesus (later) taught his followers to pray to their Father (God) not to be led into temptation. “

Response:
Notice that the FOLLOWERS were taught to pray not to be led into temptation. When he said, “bring US not into temptation,” he was giving words as an example for what his FOLLOWERS were to say, not what he himself needed to say. The followers are not above their master and can fail where the master cannot. J had to succeed where Israel had failed in the past as part of his mission, and God purposed to show the devil, at this time, that this one would never fail. Thus, J alone could confront this, but his followers could not.

Criticism:
The title "Son of God" appears for the first time in Matthew within this section. One wonders why the writer did not introduce it earlier, within the Nativity section of Matthew, so as to emphasize the connection between the divine Sonship of Jesus and the miraculous conception.

Response:
J, at the baptism, was just declared to be the Son of God before the people for the first time. Prior to this, it was largely unknown except to a small few, according to God’s intended purpose. Since Satan had just heard this about 40 days before, Satan then desired J to prove it according to Satan's ways, saying "since (better translation than "if") you are the Son of God...." Up to this time, before the eyes of the populace, J was simply supposed by almost all to simply be the son of Joseph and Mary. But the purpose of the baptism was to reveal to mankind who J truly was, being what he was prophesied to be (Psalm 2:7). Since this identity of J was not revealed to many until the time of the baptism, Matthew did not reveal it in his narrative until the time when it was first revealed on a large scale. Matthew consistently does not introduce subjects until their proper time throughout his narrative.
At 8:49 PM , Jim Deardorff said...

Please place any further responses on Mt 3 or 4 versus the TJ on the blog designated for those two chapters.

TJ Comments

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

67 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts