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.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009


With time progressing downwards, below is a timeline on the datings of early Christian writings that:

(a) show no definite awareness of any of the Gospels, in particular of Matthew; or
(b) show an awareness of Matthew, as by quoting from it, but do not mention the name of it or any other gospel; or
(c) show definite awareness of both Matthean text and its attributed name.

Rough estimates of the varying error bars are supplied. The primary reference used is the comprehensive study by Arthur J. Bellinzoni, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century,” The Second Century (Journal), Winter, 1992, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 197-258. We start with Paul, and find no further Christian writings until about 95 CE. Watch for (a) changing to (b), and (b) changing to (c).

55+/- 5 (a) Paul’s Epistles

95+/- 5 (a) 1 Clement (contains some oral tradition and a couple of later insertions from Matthew)

114+/- 3 (a) Ignatius (contains oral tradition and a later insertion from Matthew; also, Matthew may contain several quotes from Ignatius)
117+/-17 (a?b?) Epistle of Barnabas

125+/-25 (a) Letter from Mathetes to Diognetus
125+/- 5 (b) Aristides

130+/- 5 (b,c*) Papias: as relayed mainly by Eusebius, by which time it had long been heretical to believe that a Gospel was written by anyone other than the name attached to it.
130+/-10 (b) Gospel of Peter
130+/-30 (b) Didache
130+/-30 (b) Gospel of Thomas
135+/- 3 (b) Polycarp (Letter to Philippians)
135+/-15 (b) 2 Clement

140+/-10 (a?b?) The Shepherd of Hermas
140+/-10 (b) Gospel of the Nazoreans
143+/- 3 (b) Marcion (Antitheses)
145+/- 5 (b) Epistle of the Apostles

150+/-25 (b) Gospel of the Ebionites
150+/-20 (b) Gospel of Truth, Valentinus?
155+/- 5 (b) Justin

163+/-12 (b) Ptolemy (Letter to Flora)

170+/- 2 (b) Tatian (Diatesseron)
170+/-20 (b) Protevangelium of James
172+/- 2 (c) Apollinaris of Hierapolis
177+/- 1 (b) Athenagoras of Athens (Plea on Behalf of Christians)

182+/- 2 (b) Theophilus of Antioch
183+/- 5 (c) Irenaeus
185+/-15 (c) Muratorian Canon

Special discussion is needed on the entries of 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Papias. In my opinion there were two later insertions into 1 Clement: at 13:2 and 46:8. These quote quite closely from Matthew while in all other places the similarities between the two are not close enough to be deemed due to anything but oral tradition. Bellinzoni references Koester and Hagner to conclude that the writer of 1 Clement did not use any of the synoptic gospels.

Regarding Ignatius, it is at Smyrn. 1:1 // Mt 3:15 that the quotation from Matthew seems too close to be ascribable to oral tradition, and looks like a later addition (Bellinzoni suggested that it may represent “an Antiochian” revision). Furthermore, the late dating of the Gospels indicated here allows that the writer of Matthew may have borrowed some from Ignatius's epistles.

In addressing Papias, I would first draw attention to the lack of any other mention of a Gospel by name until about 172 CE (by Apollinaris of Hierapolis), some 40 or 45 years after writings appeared that quoted from, or were aware of, the Gospel of Matthew. Nearly two generations! How could this happen, if circa 130 CE Papias had written and spoken of Matthew and Mark as being the authors of the respective writings attributed to them? I have not come across any NT scholars who’ve addressed this question. The most obvious solution, however, is that in his writings Papias had included statements to the effect that the Gospels had not been written by the names ascribed to them. For several decades subsequent writers would already know this, and/or believe Papias. Yet they would recognize great value in the Gospels and would wish to quote from them. So they utilized the Gospels but omitted their attributed names. However, by the time of Irenaeus, or the changeover from (b) to (c) above, it could be assumed that the Gospels first appeared so many decades earlier that it could be stated as Christian dogma that their authors had indeed been their namesakes of the first century. By this reasoning, Eusebius circa 300 CE was forced to extract sparingly and carefully from Papias’s voluminous writings, and edit them as heavily as necessary, to preserve this suspected piece of theological commitment.

It’s well known that Eusebius considered Papias to be a man of little intelligence, and apparently quoted from him that “things from books did not benefit me as much as the sayings of a living & abiding voice” (Hist. Eccles. 3.39.4). Both considerations together are consistent with the present hypothesis of Papias having been a “whistle blower” against those who might claim the Gospels were written by their namesakes. Whistle-blowers are often downgraded by those who maintain a cover-up of the truth.

In the above chronology, the changeover from (a) to (b) occurs around 120 CE. This strongly indicates that the first Gospel appeared around that time. Although this date may seem late, it is the obvious conclusion, especially in view of the fact that, since the late 2nd century, theological commitment has continually tugged NT scholars towards belief in the earliest conceivable date for the first appearance of the Gospels.

A 120 date is consistent with the time expected of it judging from Eduard Meier’s “Epilogue and Explanation” section of the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ). It was circa 115 CE before the TJ (and a transcription of it) were delivered from the Kashmir area to the Mideast, after which it formed the basis for the first Gospel. But that is another story.


  • At 5:11 PM , Blogger Benjamin said...

    I’ve found a statement from Quetzal that throws a monkey wrench into the theory that the Gospel of Matthew first appeared around A.D. 120. In the 212th Contact, which occurred on Thursday, November 6, 1986, Meier asked Quetzal about who wrote the book of Matthew. Quetzal’s response, which appears as line 12 of the contact, reads:

    “Das Matthäus-Evangelium wurde von Matthäus einem Schriftkundigen namens Josua diktiert, der das Ganze in freiem Ermessen auslegte und niederschrieb und folglich also auch verfälschte.”

    I have translated it into English as:
    “The Gospel of Matthew was dictated by Matthew to a scribe named Joshua, who interpreted and wrote down the whole thing in his free discretion and, consequently, also falsified it.”

    Earlier in the contact, Quetzal explained to Meier that he had consulted all of the Plejaren historians and had studied all the historical records that he had at his disposal in order to discover the true origins of the books of the Bible. He was confident that this was the means by which the book of Matthew came into existence. Given that Quetzal firmly stated that the person named Matthew, one of J’s 12 disciples, dictated the book to the scribe Joshua, there is no way that the origin of book of Matthew being around the year A.D. 120 can be consistent with the information that is attested by the Plejarens and that is agreed upon by Meier. Matthew would have already been dead before the year A.D. 100. Therefore, if it is true that the TJ could have only formed the basis for the first gospel after the year A.D. 115, as the blog states, then the book of Matthew could not have been based on the TJ if Quetzal’s explanation concerning the origin of the book of Matthew is to be accepted.

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

    Thanks for that information, Ben. I would blame the gross inconsistency here on "imaginative story telling" by Quetzal, or, some more plausible deniability. Their purpose would seem to be to cast doubt on the veracity of the TJ so that there will be very little chance of any sudden revelation of TJ truths that would take hold and force millions of Christians to disbelieve what they had been brought up to believe. I.e., not violating people's free will has a higher priority than not telling lies.

    They would prefer that any such revelation come very gradually through our own institutions, as I see it.

  • At 7:27 AM , Blogger Benjamin said...

    I fully agree that there is no way that the information given by Quetzal has any chance of being true in any form. For Matthew to have dictated a story to a scribe who freely chose to distort the story as he saw fit and for the resulting work to match so closely with that of the TJ - a document that neither the scribe nor Matthew could have possibly had in his hands at the time, given that the story of the origin of the TJ, as given by the Plejarens, is true - goes beyond the realm of possibility. Nevertheless, I post this so that reasoning individuals will be cautious not to believe everything that the Plejarens have to say concerning the origin of the TJ, even though the Plejarens would have everyone believe that all that they say is true and would ridicule those who would challenge them. Thus, the Plejarens actually want people to accept the idea that Matthew dictated a story to a person who changed it as he freely chose and that so many words in the falsified version happened to line up very well with another writing that was independently created and that was never consulted, even though the writings have opposite purposes when compared to each other. And this is precisely what they want people to accept as being “logical.”


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home