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, October 11, 2011


Below is a comment I added to the 10/8/2011 blog of Mark Goodacre, who had blogged about the story of the hemorraghing woman in Mark's Gospel who was healed after touching Jesus' garment, while in Matthew she had touched only the hem of the garment. The fact that there's a YouTube musical video of the story prompted his blog. In my comment I pointed out several reasons why that location in Mark favors a Hebraic form of Matthew having preceded the Gospel of Mark, while Goodacre of course had utilized language expressing the preferred view that Mark came first, and (the writer of) Matthew redacted Mark.

Is it OK to look at things the other way around -- that it makes more sense that the writer of Mark redacted Matthew’s story? Markan priority, replete with reversible argumentation, is by no means assured when there is so much evidence, internal and external, favoring priority of a Hebraic Matthew, later translated into Greek Matthew with use then being made of Greek text within Mark and Luke.

1. At Mark 5.31 the unworthy Jewish disciples insolently question Jesus’ knowledge, not in Matthew’s parallel. This is but one of many well known Markan “harder readings” that disparage the Jewish disciples, for which the obvious possibility -- that the writer of Mark (probably in Rome) was anti-Jewish, becomes a non-issue if Mark is placed ahead of Matthew.

2. Just preceding the Markan pericope, the man healed of his legion is told to go to his home (in pro-gentile Decapolis) and proclaim all the Lord had done for him. This is easily seen as part of Mark’s Messianic “Secret” – a secret to be kept from the Jewish population but not at all from the gentiles. (The Markan addition is not in the parallel of Matt. 8.28-33.)

3. In the Matthean pericope there is no crowd or great crowd present, as there is in Mark 5.24,30.

4. In Mark Jesus’ courage, boldness and power are emphasized, while not in Matthew. In Mark 5.30 Jesus perceives that power had gone forth from him. Not only does Matthew not mention this source of power, but it is an obvious invention by the writer of Mark, since only Jesus would have known if such had occurred.

5. Whether the fringe/hem of the garment was original in Matthew or its absence original in Mark, can be argued either way. However, the latter is consistent with Matt. 23.5 mentioning phylacteries and fringes while Mark 12.38 omits them for a gentile audience, and just cautions to beware of scribes who wish to walk about in robes.

Addendum: In the TJ, the woman touched the fringe of Jmmanuel's garment.


  • At 5:12 AM , Blogger Bruce said...

    James, what are your thoughts regarding the latest major revisions to the TJ?

    Will you do an update to your previous work at

  • At 9:58 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Hello Bruce,

    Thanks for your question and that URL. I read over that report some time ago, and will continue to reserve most of my impressions and opinions until after TJ Edition 5 actually comes out, with its English version.

    As of now I have mixed feelings about it. I certainly agree with parts of that article, like Rashid having improperly translated JHWH into "God," and having too heavily relied upon the German Bible's Gospel of Matthew in a lot of places. (I believe I presented this opinion back around 1990.)

    Yet I feel that Meier exaggerated much too much in writing "Evidently, he [Rashid] behaved in such a way that, during the translating, he always gave preference to the New Testament version whenever he was faced with the question which version was the right one, that of the original scroll of the ‹Talmud Jmmanuel›, which was written in the Old Aramaic language, or that of the New Testament, which he knew inside and out due to his lay priesthood. Evidently, he was not informed regarding the realisation of the so-called gospels or he was only informed as far as the christian traditions represent it, which, however, do not correspond to the facts. Evidently, he believed, therefore, that the four gospels had come about on the basis of original records - that they could be falsified was obviously absolutely far from what he thought."

    However, Isa Rashid did properly include the TJ's worst heresies for Christianity: That "God" was an advanced human and not the Creator of All, Immanuel's name had not been Jesus, he had not died on the cross, did not sacrifice himself to save mankind from their sins, did not descend into hell for 3 days & nights, had traveled to India in his youth, and more. So Rashid did realize that the Gospels were great falsifications of the TJ's truths, if he could agree that the whole basis of Christianity had been falsified, and that Judaism was built upon a total misconception of who/what "God" was.

    Would Rashid have included all those great heresies yet have omitted, as being too heretical, the notion that Immanuel would have had some female disciples?

    So I have to be wary that the Plejarens may have reasoned that TJ Edition 5 would explain too much in a too logical fashion (which might alert some influential scholars who could convince others into accepting it as real without deducing that fact for themselves), unless they were to add in a certian number of contradictions or fanciful foolishness of their own invention. Doing that would continue to keep all scholars away from thinking the TJ could be anything than Meier's or Rashid's invention. Such would be in keeping with the Pl's most basic precept (of the last few thousand years), that they must not now cause or force humanity to accept anything against their will, even if it were to require the Pl's to insert some little lies into what they tell Meier from time to time.

    But I don't expect to be able to deduce with much certainty, in many cases, what were the original TJ's truths and what were Plejaren alterations in later editions, especially the 5th, that had not been in the TJ's original text or intent.

  • At 2:46 AM , Blogger Bruce said...


    You make excellent and more importantly logical points, regarding Rashid including many heresies in his translation; as well as the Plejarens precept of not forcing truth upon earth humans that would cause more harm than good.

    Regarding: "This was, among other things, the reason why the Arahat Athersata level was included, as it alone still had access to the original texts, which, in their entirety, are stored in its level."

    What is the difference between us earth humans, at our current evolutionary level, accepting statements from some socalled 'Arahat Athersata' level or from some 'God'? As far as we're concerned, they both require belief/faith/assumption that they actually exist, no?

    Have you spoken to Meier about this latest revision or you will wait until an English version is available?

  • At 8:46 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...


    Re your question about info coming from the Arahat Athersata level, I have no reason to think that such a level, whatever one may call it, doesn't exist. The evidence from reincarnation studies lets us know with certainty that the spiritual realm does exist, along with our individual surviving human spirits. And there's pretty good evidence suggesting that our spirits do seek out future lives that will help them learn important lessons they still need to learn better -- i.e. evolve spiritually.

    Meier's ETs probably have similar access to that spiritual A.A. level as he has, I would guess.

    Yes, I'm just waiting until the 5th edition of the TJ is available.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home