TJ Comments

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

Monday, October 13, 2008

DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS TJ VERSES

The various verses referred to in the comments within include TJ 10, 18 and 28. For example, in TJ 28:27, it is a member of the arresting party who, having a change of heart, strikes out with his sword and cuts off the ear of a chief priest's servant. Matthew 26 has it that it was "one of those who were with Jesus" who did this.

posted by Jim Deardorff @ 1:48 PM  

19 Comments:

  • At 4:37 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    This is in response to a comment made by Ben that was posted under "Discussion of TJ 18 and Mt 16" (11:30 AM).

    Ben quotes from my discussion at www.tjresearch.info/mt26.htm:

    "In TJ 28:27 it is made clear that the swordsman was one in the arresting party who then changed his mind after hearing Jmmanuel speak, and sided with him; he was not Peter, as the Gospel of John would have it."

    His Question:
    What would be a good reason for John changing the person who cut off the ear from one who was in the arresting party to his close friend Peter, assuming the disciple John wrote the gospel attributed to him?

    Wouldn't it make more sense that in order to protect the reputation of his friend Peter, assuming that Peter was the one who cut off the ear in the first place, that John would have changed the one from being Peter to being one who was in the arresting party?

    I would speculate that the writer of John knew what Matthew, probably Mark, Luke and the TJ had to say about this. He sided with the writer of Matthew, that it would be best to have a loyal supporter of Jesus perform this act, and not a disciple, who should know better than to resort to violence.

    However, the writer of John seems to have been extra sympathetic towards Peter, since he didn't include the verse that is in the TJ, in Matthew and hence Mark, and in Luke, of Peter breaking down and sobbing after the cock crowed following his third denial. So, more speculation: the writer of John decided to let Peter be the manly one who sought to defend his Lord with a sword.

    Thanks to the TJ, we know the truth of what actually happened during J's arrest.

     

  • At 5:42 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Being that the author of John reveals himself to be the same author of at least the three epistles attributed to him and also most likely the book of Revelation, it would not make sense for this devoted follower of Jesus to

    1. make up a lie that would hurt his own reputation, while

    2. defaming his close friend or respected authority at the same time,

    especially since it's already been mentioned that Peter was one whom the author of John was careful to be sympathetic towards. One needs to have a good basis for charging this author with this specific lie, especially since he likely had access to Matthew, Mark, and Luke at the least, which did not reveal this and since his writings reveal that he had a strong conviction that one should never willfully lie.

    What possible conclusions could one make when considering that the apostle John, the one historically credited with writing the fourth gospel, happens to know who specifically cut off the ear apart from the other 3 synoptic gospel writers and this one also is recorded as being an eyewitness to the event? If one is careful to consider fully both sides of the argument, this shows itself to be consistent with the author of the TJ contradicting other small details of the other writers as a result of not caring to look at them. Nevertheless, the details across all 4 gospel accounts remarkably harmonize and complement each other, which would be difficult to arise from careless editing or lies. One must perform a harmonization him or herself to see this and/or also read other comments across the blogs which pertain to this.

    To look at the issue of whether or not the TJ or Matthew was the original, one must fully consider it from all angles:

    1. IF the gospels were the originals and the TJ came later, then would it make sense that... (and vice versa with the TJ)

    Also,

    2. IF the gospels are TRUE and the TJ came later, then would it make sense that... (and vice versa with the TJ)

    You see, whether or not the TJ is the original or Matthew is the original is a separate issue from whether or not either of them is true. But one must fully consider all 4 possibilities in an analysis and, therefore, needs to be well informed of all of the sides when considering them. Since Jim has already given much support of 2 of the 4 sides on his main webpage, it only makes sense that I would be informing of the other 2 remaining sides for one to help decide for him or herself.

     

  • At 6:41 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Ben wrote,
    Being that the author of John reveals himself to be the same author of at least the three epistles attributed to him and also most likely the book of Revelation, it would not make sense for this devoted follower of Jesus to

    1. make up a lie that would hurt his own reputation, while

    2. defaming his close friend or respected authority at the same time,

    The author of the Gospel of John wasn't the disciple John, as he wouldn't still have been alive to write it in A.D. 125 or 130. Assuming the gospels were written early doesn't make it so.

     

  • At 6:40 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Consistently throughout the book of John, whenever the disciple John is mentioned in the narrative, the author always refuses to mention him specifically by name. Interestingly enough, this argument has been used in the analysis of the TJ to show that Judas was the author of the TJ who desired not to refer to himself by name out of humility. I am not sure why this same argument would not apply to the gospel of John. The author of John's gospel repeatedly shows himself to know of many specific details of events when the disciple John was one of the few people present. This is also the only author of the New Testament who ever refers to J as “the Word,” which he also does in the epistles and in Revelation. Secular history attests that the disciple of John was exiled to the island of Patmos, where the writer of Revelation was exiled as well, who refers to himself in that book, finally, as John. This same writer repeatedly affirms that he was an eyewitness to the events of J. These are only a small handful of details that show that the disciple John was the writer of these books, details which historical critics love to ignore completely.

    It would actually make sense for one desiring to discredit John's testimony to come up with the idea that while the disciple John was the writer of the book attributed to him, he, nevertheless, made up lies concerning the identity of J. This is actually a typical approach taken by many historical critics. This would be much more reasonable then trying to say that the writer of the fourth gospel was not John the disciple. It is strongly recommended that one looks into works which have been written concerning the authorship of John’s gospel and its relation to the other gospels, since it is largely concluded to be the last gospel written yet within the disciple John’s lifetime, in order for one to decide for him or herself.

     

  • At 5:17 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    We know that Judas was the author of the TJ for two reasons unlike any that fundamentalists can claim for the Gospels.

    First, of course, Meier was a first-hand witness to the uncovering of the TJ when Rashid was present to translate the outer sheet(s) and notice that the document was written by Judas Iscariot. The follow-up to this is the checking out of Meier’s credibility, which has been done by those friends and associates who have known him, and by the UFO investigators who’ve studied his experiences. Meier is still alive to vouch for the reality of his and Rashid's discovery.

    Second, within its text the TJ indicates, in some 14 verses, that Judas Iscariot was the writer.

    On the other hand, within the text of Matthew (and the other Gospels), there is no indication of who the author was. In fact, the writer of Matthew denigrated tax collectors, which is hardly consistent with Matthew the disciple having worked in a tax office if the writer had been the disciple.

    Thus it’s been known now, since 1978, that the Gospels weren’t written until after the TJ made its way to the Mideast in the early 2nd century. Hence the Gospels weren’t written by the names attributed to them.

     

  • At 7:57 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    It is understandable why one who desires to believe the TJ would have to hold to the conviction that the gospels were not written by the ones they are attributed to.

    In TJ 10:4, where a variation occurs in the list as compared to Matthew, it reads:

    "Judas Iscariot, the only one, other than Jmmanuel, who understood handwriting."

    It should be considered that IF the TJ came after Matthew, the very purpose of this brief yet major statement would be to attempt to discredit the other gospels with one small and swift remark. Basically, it is saying "don't even look at or consider the books attributed to Matthew or John because they could not have been written by them since I am saying that neither of them knew handwriting. Only look at and consider the TJ." One, therefore, could easily reject what history records and ignore the other gospels and simply put faith in the statement of the writer of the TJ.

    Such a statement might also show that the creator of the document also did not care to look at the gospel of John if he or she was the one who changed the book of Matthew since he or she would have known that the gospel of John is already well-known to have come fourth and, therefore, has already been rejected as being heavily invented.

    If one desires to be open-minded, this implied charge should be tested and weighed against all of the available evidence that is at hand to us, including the very documents themselves which are attributed to these men, to determine the validity of the charge that has been made.

     

  • At 9:41 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Since authorship has been brought up, I have a general question which can later be posted under a discussion section of TJ 10 if so desired:

    TJ 10:3 - "and Matthew, the tax collector"

    TJ 10:4 - "Judas Iscariot, the only one, other than Jmmanuel, who understood handwriting."

    Question:

    How could Matthew have worked as a tax collector if he did not understand handwriting?

     

  • At 4:57 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Why look at only one side of the coin? Why not consider the counter questions also? In how many ways could a person who did not understand handwriting in those days work in a tax office as a tax collector? Could he collect coins? Could he count the value of the coins? Could he collect produce and seeds? Could he work under the supervision of one who did understand handwriting?

     

  • At 8:29 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    In his 7:57 AM comment above, Ben wrote:
    In TJ 10:4, where a variation occurs in the list as compared to Matthew, it reads:

    "…and Judas Iscariot, the only one, other than Jmmanuel, who understood handwriting."

    The above clause from TJ 10:4 was part and parcel of the original TJ, no doubt so that the reader would know why it was Judas Iscariot who was selected to be Jmmanuel’s writer. Obviously, that verse had to be strongly modified by the Gospel writer(s) so that they could attribute their gospels to persons other than the “traitorous” Judas.

    It should be considered that IF the TJ came after Matthew, the very purpose of this brief yet major statement would be to attempt to discredit the other gospels with one small and swift remark. Basically, it is saying "don't even look at or consider the books attributed to Matthew or John because they could not have been written by them since I am saying that neither of them knew handwriting. Only look at and consider the TJ."

    That reasoning neglects the facts that: (a) The other two gospels could not have been written by the non-disciples and non-witnesses, John Mark and the physician Luke. So why trust the other two attributions either? (b) The lack of evidence that the gospels were written in the 1st century, accompanied by a wealth of literary evidence that they were available by mid-2nd century, does strongly suggest they weren’t written while any of the disciples were still alive. (c) The strong verbal agreement, and large lengths of agreement in order of pericopes between the Gospels, strongly suggest that no more than one of the synoptic gospels is independent of the others. Therefore it is very unlikely they were written independently from separate first-hand accounts. Therefore at least two of them were not written by the names attributed, from this consideration alone. It is thus senseless to retain the hope that the gospel writers were saintly pipelines from God. (d) It is quite improbable that Matthew was written by the disciple who had been a tax collector, when the Gospel by that attribution denigrates tax collectors.

    Thus the fresh TJ evidence gives much reason to take the above facts into consideration instead of ignoring them, and to relegate your above IF to the realm of the slimmest of possibilities, based more upon faith than reason.

     

  • At 5:51 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Several questions were asked:

    “In how many ways could a person who did not understand handwriting in those days work in a tax office as a tax collector?”

    Response:
    According to what history records, the answer is zero ways.

    “Could he collect coins?” Could he count the value of the coins?”

    It would only make sense for the one counting the value of the coins also to record the values for each person, which would require handwriting along with good math skills.

    “Could he collect produce and seeds?”

    There would be no reason for him to do this apart from the educated tax collector who would have had to assess the value of every single good. The uneducated man would have simply slowed the assessor down.

    “Could he work under the supervision of one who did understand handwriting?”

    If he was working under the supervision of one who understood handwriting, such a one who would be rightly called a tax collector, he himself would not be called a “tax collector.” I have yet to find any sources which say that tax collectors had or needed "apprentices."

    It is well-known that the publicans had houses or booths that were built for them, often located at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, and by the sea shore, where they took the tolls of passengers that came by. Ancient Jewish literature cites bridges being made in order to take tolls, the tax gatherers being at the water side, and "the tickets" or "seals of the publicans," which, after someone paid a toll on one side of a river, these were written out by the tax collector and given to the one who paid as a receipt for proof of payment. Many such ancient receipts that were written out by the tax collectors in the Greco-Roman world of that time period are still preserved to us to this day.

    The tax collectors of those times were contracted by Rome to collect a required amount of taxes for the government. Those who specifically worked at the booths performed all duties of examining all of the goods, whether imported or exported, assessing their value, writing out the tickets, and enforcing payment. They had to be sure to collect the required amount due to Rome and were to collect a little extra to keep for themselves. As such, it would not make sense for Rome to hire any uneducated men who could not perform correct calculations or keep detailed records which kept track of all of the people. In deed, history records that tax collectors were among the more well-educated men of that time. There also would have been no need for the tax collectors to have uneducated people working under them, which would not make the process more efficient and which would only mean less money for them to keep in their pockets. It does not make good sense to try to speculate beyond what history itself records concerning the position of the tax collector at that time period.

     

  • At 6:17 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mt 10:9-10 "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food."

    Concerning the above verse, it was said:

    THE PROBLEM. Matthew's advice is very foolhardy — taking nothing.

    Response:

    Here, a criticism appears which ignores the meaning of the Greek and also reveals a poor translation of the Greek into English that was made by the translators of the RSV. The Greek word "Ktaomai," which is poorly translated in the RSV as "take," actually means "to acquire, get, or procure something." Thus, in this context, it would mean getting something IN ADDITION to what one already has.

    This is why no contradiction appears in Matthew's account when compared to the account in Mark 6:8-9, which reads:

    "He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff — no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts— but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics." (NKJV)

    In Mark's passage, the word "airo" can actually be well-translated as "take" and, indeed, has been so translated. Also in Mark's passage, we see that the disciples were allowed to take one staff. In Matthew's account, where J tells them not to acquire or procure a staff, it means that they each were only to take a staff that they were already assumed to have had (which would be easy for J to determine since he was looking at them at the time), and there was no need for them to acquire an additional staff, thus agreeing with Mark. Matthew's account says for them not to acquire two tunics; therefore, they were simply to take the one tunic that they already had. Mark similarly says for them not to put on two tunics, implying just to put on the one that they already had, so we see agreement once again. Once more, Matthew says not to acquire sandals; thus, they were simply to continue to wear the sandals which they already had on, which J could again easily determine simply by looking at them. J doesn't tell them to take their sandals off. Mark agrees that they were simply to continue to wear the sandals, which they already would have been wearing at the time that the statement was made. In neither account was it necessary for them to procure additional pairs of sandals.

    It is interesting that while Beare was aware of the common things that people already carried with them during this time period, he chose to form a criticism based on his ignorance of the Greek word and also chose not to look any further into the matter. This, then, gets passed on to those who read Beare and others like him and then put their trust in their credentials without performing additional investigation into the matter themselves.

    Here, we see that the word translated as "amass" in the TJ is actually closer to the parallel Greek word in Matthew's account than the RSV's translated word "take."

    It goes without saying, then, that Matthew and Mark agree with each other in the original Greek. Therefore, Mark did not have to make any alleged "correction" to Matthew's statement, as charged.

     

  • At 8:48 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mt 9:10 And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

    TJ 9:10 And it came to pass as he was eating at home, behold, many tax collectors, ignorant people and truth seekers came and ate at the table with Jmmanuel and his disciples.

    It was said:

    “It may also be noted that "at home" ("zu Hause" in the German) is used rather than "in the house" ("im Hause"). This probably means that Jmmanuel was then at the home he had been living in during his time in Capernaum, and not at Nazareth.”

    Response:

    If this is rightly translated as “at home,” then the context of the TJ would strongly suggest that the home must be referring to Jmmanuel’s home. If this is the case, then a problem seems to appear with TJ chapter 8.

    TJ 8:25
    Jmmanuel spoke to him, "Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but I HAVE NO FIXED PLACE WHERE I CAN LAY MY HEAD."

    This passage parallels Matthew 8:20. Nevertheless, Matthew 9:10 does not cause a problem with Matthew 8:20 because the house is simply referred to as the “house” and not a “home," with the implication that it was J's home. Luke 5:29 more clearly identifies the house as belonging to Matthew, who was also called Levi. TJ 9:10’s “at home,” however, seems to cause a problem with TJ 8:25.

     

  • At 10:11 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Mt 8:20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head."

    Concerning the above verse, it was said:

    "A second, minor problem of logic is that, just like a fox can bed down in a hollow at any suitable spot, Jesus and his disciples could bed down along the roadside or in a town wherever they found themselves at nightfall. So with this analogy Jesus did always have some place to lay his head."

    Response:

    Some meanings of the Greek word "echo," which has been translated as "has" in the above verse, are "to own, to possess, or to be closely joined to something." Based on the context of the verse, this is clearly how the word is being used in Matthew. Just because someone can lie down in a certain place does not mean that the person then owns, possesses, or is somehow closely linked to that place as a result of lying down there. The "problem," thus, is simply based on one applying just one use of the English word "has" and then assuming that this one particular use of the English word "has" parallels the use and meaning of the Greek word "echo." If one understands the Greek, no "problem of logic" arises here.

     

  • At 11:01 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    I had asked:
    “In how many ways could a person who did not understand handwriting in those days work in a tax office as a tax collector?”

    Ben's Response:
    According to what history records, the answer is zero ways.

    I haven't had time to survey all of history on this. But as you would say, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.

    But I suspect that Matthew was well practiced with using Roman numerals.

     

  • At 11:48 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Re Mt 10:9-10,

    Darby’s translation was:
    “Do not provide yourselves with gold, or silver, or brass, for your belts, nor scrip [or wallet] for the way, nor two body coats, nor sandals, nor a staff…”

    The "provide" carries over to all the items. They'd never be instructed not to acquire two body coats.


    So when it comes to traveling and preaching to the lost sheep of Israel, the disciples, according to Matthew, were to have (provide themselves) no sandals in their possession, and no money in their wallets, and have no staff with them.

    Naturally one wonders why the writer of Matthew would have altered the TJ’s advice not to carry too much with them:

    TJ 10:9-10 "You shall not amass gold, silver or copper in your belts. Also, on your travels you shall not take large bags with you in which to carry food, water and clothing."

    into such weird instructions of no money, no sandals, no staff. The answer is given at www.tjresearch.info/mt10.htm#Mt10.9-10. Scholars have long known of this.

     

  • At 11:59 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Re TJ 9:10 (and Mt 9:10) I had written:

    “It may also be noted that 'at home' ('zu Hause' in the German) is used rather than 'in the house' ('im Hause'). This probably means that Jmmanuel was then at the home he had been living in during his time in Capernaum, and not at Nazareth.”

    Perhaps I should have added that this home was probably not owned by Jmmanuel.

     

  • At 1:30 PM , Blogger Ben said...

    It does not matter if Darby's translation adds additional confusion to the matter or not. It still reads in the Greek as I have stated, "do not acquire" or "procure" for yourselves, appearing as an indirect middle aorist subjunctive. One should consult a Greek authority for full meaning, not a translation.

    It was said:
    "They'd never be instructed not to acquire two body coats."

    If one already had a coat, then he would acquire two coats (total) by procuring one more coat for himself. They were not to procure anything more than they already had.

    I am well aware of the "scholars" of which you speak, who also do not familiarize themselves much with the Greek language.

    It was said:
    "Perhaps I should have added that this home was probably not owned by Jmmanuel."

    Response:
    If it is still regarded as a "home," then it would still be a place that Jmmanuel was closely linked to, regardless of whether he was the property owner or not. The difference between a "house" and a "home" is quite large. I tried consulting several German authorities on the matter and all of them did regard this to be taken as a "home."

     

  • At 3:51 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Re Mt 8:20 versus TJ 8:25 (“but I have no fixed place where I can lay my head”), your interpretation of the Matthean Greek comes a bit closer to the TJ, where its German “Festes” might also be translated as “firm place” or “secure place,” in my opinion.

    The remaining difference between Matthew and the TJ is likely to have been due to differences in translation of the Aramaic. I don’t think the writer of Matthew made any willful change here.

     

  • At 6:15 AM , Blogger Ben said...

    Here is a fuller explanation of how MT 10:9-10 and MK 6:8-9 complement each other, in relation to a comment which appears above:

    Matthew 10:9-10
    “Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.” (English Standard Version)

    Mark 6:8-9
    He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. (English Standard Version)

    The first important item that the reader must note is that Matthew 10:9-10 appears as a quote and, therefore, a direct statement that was made by J. Mark 6:8-9, however, appears as an explanation from the narrator in the narrator’s own words of what J had said to the disciples at that time.

    The next important item to note is that Matthew’s account never has J telling the disciples to “take nothing.” It simply has the instructions of not to “acquire” certain items, which would mean obtaining the items through additional effort, thus excluding what they would have already had in their possession. Mark’s passage, on the other hand, is the one which explains that J told them to “take nothing,” with a few exceptions to this command.

    In Matthew, they were told not to “acquire” gold, silver, or copper for their belts or a bag, and in Mark, it is explained that they were not to “take” any bread, bag, or money in their belts. Therefore, this information shows that while everyone had a belt in their possession at the time, either none of them had any money, bags, or bread on hand or if anyone did, they were to leave such items behind.

    In Matthew, they were told not to “acquire” sandals or a staff. In Mark, they were allowed to “take” a staff and sandals. Therefore, this information shows that everyone already had a staff and a pair of sandals on them, which they were permitted to take.

    In Matthew, they were told not to “acquire” two tunics. In Mark, they were not to “put on” two tunics. Since this was one statement made by J that was addressed to multiple individuals, it shows two things:

    1. Some who were present likely were not already wearing a tunic. Thus, they were permitted to “acquire” just one tunic if they did not already have one, but they were not to “acquire” two.
    2. The ones who may have already had a tunic on at the time, would have known that they were not to “acquire” an additional one since the ones who did not have tunics on were only permitted to “acquire” one.

    Thus, we see that Matthew and Mark complement each other. In fact, if one wanted to support the Dependence View with priority of Matthew, here would be a time where Mark appears to better explain what appears in Matthew. Thus, one could say that Mark was looking at Matthew and clarifying the quote in his own words. On the other hand, one who wanted to support the Dependence View with priority of Mark could say that Mark was not aware of the full quote of Jesus and so the author of Matthew desired to have the section appear as the full quote which was given by J at the time, while agreeing with Mark’s explanation for what was stated.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home