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.

Saturday, November 29, 2008


This is in regard to Mt 22:41-42 and TJ 23:50-51. Did the Pharisees believe that Immanuel was the one prophesied by Isaiah and Daniel? The Almighty Counselor, the son of man, the anointed one? John the Baptist had been looking for this prophesied one, and evidently even the writer of Matthew did not think that the Isaiah prophecy had long ago been fulfilled, in the days of King Ahaz. In the cited verses, the Pharisees knew that J was from the House of David, and of course knew (in the TJ account) that his name was Immanuel, as in the Isaiah prophecy. And they were students of the Torah. So why didn’t they treat him as the prophesied messiah?

One possibility is that (a) they believed him to be an imposter. Another is (b) they were amongst those who believed the prophecy had been fulfilled centuries earlier. Another is that (c) they could see that by his name, background and deeds he could indeed claim to be the prophesied one, but since he preached so strongly against the scribes & Pharisees they could not afford to grant him his true status; they felt too strongly endangered by him. I prefer (c), what do you think?

With Matthew, the evidence for (c) and against (a) and (b) is not as strong, since there he is given the name “Jesus” at birth, which did not fulfill the Isaiah prophecy.