TJ Comments

2011-10-11T20:57:00.000-07:00

PRIORITY OF MATTHEW OVER MARK AS EXEMPLIFIED FROM ONE PERICOPE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TALMUD OF JMMANUEL (TJ) HAVING PRECEDED ALL

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.

2010-11-16T13:25:00.000-08:00

Gospel Studies: Letting Matthew Regain Priority over Mark

It has always been problematic that Mark should be placed ahead of Matthew, considering that the earliest tradition, of the church fathers, was that a Semitic version of Matthew preceded the other Gospels. The portion of this tradition that affirms the Gospels to have been written early and by their attributed namesakes is easily suspect of being wrong, because such affirmation was demanded by theological commitment. However, the order in which the Gospels were written was just a matter of history, not faith.

One reason that this situation changed, in the 19th century after the Gospels had come under more careful scrutiny, was an unspoken reason. When Matthew is placed ahead of Mark, it can become apparent from comparing parallel passages that the writer of Mark was strongly anti-Semitic. Not only were the Jewish disciples therein treated as unworthy of discipleship in various ways, so were the Jewish people as contrasted with gentiles living in the Decapolis region. Mark's emphasis of the "Don't tell" admonition after a healing (the "Messianic Secret") served to deprive Jews of the good news while not withholding it from gentiles. Other examples include the (Jewish) leper whom Jesus looked upon with anger (as in the Western text D, not pity; compare Mk 1:41 and Mt 8:3), and the people in the synagogue he looked upon with anger (compare Mk 3:5 and Mt 12:13).

A different set of examples of Mark's anti-Semitism (directed at the Jewish people in general and not just at their clerics as in Matthew) occurs at Mk 6:34 (when compared with Mt 14:14), Mk 10:1 (compare with Mt 19:2), and at Mk 11:7 (compare with Mt 21:14). There in Matthew Jesus heals the (Jewish) people, while in Mark they are not healed, but rather are taught. An anti-Semitic attitude of the 1st and 2nd centuries would portray ignorant Jews as being taught while denying them healing.

There are too many other examples of Markan anti-Semitism than can be mentioned here. By placing Mark ahead of Matthew, however, scholars could then say that for whatever reason Mark was rough on people (except gentiles), a problem which the writers of Matthew and Luke eliminated or ameliorated. To have to think that the writer of Mark was blatantly anti-Semitic was too deplorable to contemplate or speak of. Hence, other reasons -- non-compelling ones -- were set forth to try to explain that Mark had been the first gospel. It didn't require the Holocaust for scholars to realize that it was not at all good for their profession and for Christianity if it was undeniable that one of the Gospel writers had been unashamedly anti-Semitic.

2009-06-06T10:27:00.000-07:00

OBAMA IN CAIRO: HIS QUOTES FROM MATTHEW
IN RELATION TO THE TALMUD OF JMMANUEL
In Obama’s speech I recall hearing two quotes from the Gospel of Matthew. One was the Golden Rule, which is in the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) also. The other, also from Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, was “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” It is not in the TJ. Why not, and what TJ verse was it a substitution for?

The one-to-one correspondence between Matthew and the TJ, in much of the Sermon on the Mount, allows us to pinpoint the TJ verse that the writer of Matthew omitted and substituted for at this point. It is TJ 5:9, “Blessed are those who know about Creation, for they are not enslaved by erroneous teachings.” It is not difficult to see why that verse was unacceptable. First, the Aramaic word for “Creation” was not the proper word to use for the God of Israel. Second, it would not do at all to cause readers/listeners to beware false teachings. That could cause followers of the young messianic form of Judaism to start thinking for themselves rather than blindly accept what church authorities said.

The “peacemakers” verse that the writer substituted seems quite nice; should Jmmanuel himself have said as much? In the TJ he speaks of peace in some 18 places. However, he would not have called a peacemaker a “son of God.” Instead, he believed in using the correct choice of words, as cautioned in TJ 6:1, “Be mindful of your piety, that you practice it before the people with correct words, lest you be accused of lying and thereby find no reward from them. Choose your words using natural logic…” He had objected when Peter called him “son of the living god” (TJ 18:20), as he was the son of the “celestial son” Gabriel. A different extraterrestrial was the overseer ("god") of several human lineages. And Jmmanuel had objected to Pharisees when they referred to him as “son of David,” since David had long since been dead (TJ 23:52).

2009-06-02T19:38:00.000-07:00

CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS, AND
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE DATING OF THE GOSPELS
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.

2009-05-12T20:31:00.000-07:00

UPDATE OF MT 6:6 DISCUSSION IN LIGHT OF TJ 6:5-8
At my discussion of Mt 6:6 I’ve added in the TJ verses that the writer of Matthew omitted and substituted for, which he apparently did in order to avoid any hint that one should, when praying properly, pray to one’s spirit. The TJ verses he omitted include mention that one may utilize a sacred object to assist in communing with, or meditating upon, one’s spirit while in prayer.

2009-02-25T08:43:00.000-08:00

A FRESH INTERPRETATION OF MEIER'S HASENBÖL PHOTOS
An important part of the evidence that points to the TJ's genuineness is the testimony of its co-discoverer, Eduard "Billy" Meier, of the discovery's reality and provenance. Hence my web site gives ample evidence that Meier's UFO experiences and photos were no hoaxes.

Recently I've added a short web page that gives a fresh interpretation of his Hasenböl photos of 1976. In his photos taken when the beamship had approached most closely, it now seems an inescapable fact that the craft was hovering on the far side of the deciduous tree. See
www.tjresearch.info/Hasenbol_Proof.htm .

2008-11-29T09:09:00.000-08:00

DID PHARISEES KNOW THAT J WAS THE PROPHESIED ONE?
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.

2008-10-13T13:48:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

SPACE FOR MORE COMMENTS ON MATTHEW 2

More comments may be made here on my Matthew-versus-TJ comparison at www.tjresearch.info/mt2.htm .

2008-10-04T15:33:00.000-07:00

DISCUSSION OF MATTHEW 12 AND TJ 13

In this blog section comments involving these parallel chapters that may have been placed under a different section heading can be continued, as well as fresh comments contributed.

2008-05-22T14:40:00.000-07:00

THERE WERE TWO INTERPRETERS OF PETER!

WHICH ONE WROTE MARK?

On the blog of Steven Carlson of 5/18/2008, his guest blogger, Andrew Criddle, pointed out that in one writing, Clement of Alexandria wrote something that the Gnostic, Basilides, had said, involving an interpreter of Peter by the name of Glaucias who was a contemporary of Basilides -- circa A.D. 120-140. Here is the quote, from Book 7 of the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria:

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

However, elsewhere Clement wrote, as relayed by Eusebius, that [John] Mark was in Rome with Peter, acting as his literary aid, and Papias also wrote of Mark being Peter's interpreter in Rome. This was circa A.D. 50-60.

This fits in nicely with the TJ's chronology, its mention of the first chronicling of Jmmanuel's ministry by Judas Iscariot that was abruptly halted when it was stolen at a point corresponding to Matthew's 12th chapter, with the order of Mark versus Matthew following Matthew very closely only from Matthew's 12th chapter on, and with it having become serious heresy by the time of Irenaeus (circa A.D. 190) for a Christian to believe anything other than that the Gospels were written by their namesakes.

The solution seems to be that:

a) Mark in Rome was Peter's interpreter there, and the two had with them the stolen writing of Judas, which one of them had recovered and taken with them to Rome. It was not the Gospel of Mark! Call it Ur-TJ. It contained rough equivalents of Mt 8-11. It could receive very little circulation, being contrary to certain beliefs being espoused by Paul. So the Ur-TJ languished in some house-church in Rome.

b) Much later, circa 117-120, Matthew was written. It came to the attention of a gentile Christian in Rome, Glaucias, who knew about the Ur-TJ, and who was sufficiently upset over Matthew's anti-gentile tone as to write his own Gospel, which he attributed to (John) Mark, since he utilized the Ur-TJ in writing the Gospel of Mark.

c) Clement of Alexandria, in writing briefly about these matters circa 195-200, knew that the Gospels had to have been written by their namesakes, in keeping with that branch of orthodoxy, and so wrote about John Mark in Rome being Peter's interpreter and the author of Mark. Now Basilides had apparently mentioned Glaucias as being the writer of Mark, and so Clement could only refer to this as Glaucias being Peter's interpreter. But this could be a backhanded way of acknowledging that Glaucias had written Mark, while allowing believers to assume that by "Peter's interpreter" Clement or Basilides had meant a later disciple of Peter.

d) Glaucias can be assumed to have moved to Alexandria not too long after writing Mark, perhaps to escape criticisms from Jewish Christians in Rome who did not care for Mark's anti-Jewish comments relative to Matthew. There Basilides met him, and could later boast of having been a student of his (Glaucias was his master), after he had gone his gnostic way.

2008-05-19T06:49:00.000-07:00

NEW SPACE FOR MORE COMMENTS ON TJ 3 OR 4

Please post new comments on these TJ chapters here.

2008-03-22T08:58:00.000-07:00

DISCUSSION OF TJ 18 AND MATTHEW 16

There are some 17 problematic Matthean verses in Mt 16, apparently caused by the writer's alterations of TJ 18.

2008-03-21T11:18:00.000-07:00

DISCUSSION OF TJ 17-18:1 & MATTHEW 15

There are quite a few problems with Matthew in this segment, both to passages that are parallels to TJ verses and those that are not.

2008-03-20T11:29:00.000-07:00

DISCUSSION OF TJ 16 AND MATTHEW 14

Breaking the discussions into chapter segments will help alleviate the congestion of too many comments and replies in any one thread. However, judging from the earlier discussions, a given thread on a particular chapter may still become so long as to need a new one. So I won’t yet set out headings for all the others, and/or for chapters previously discussed in part.

A forum already exists for discussing questions on the TJ, chapter by chapter, at "http://forum.figu.org/cgi-bin/discuss.cgi". If you desire to use that, after registering and logging in, click on “Books and Booklets Area,” then on “The Talmud of Jmmanuel.”

2008-03-20T11:28:00.001-07:00

DISCUSSION OF TJ 15 AND MATTHEW 13

My further responses to Ben’s comments, and comments of others on the material in these particular chapters, will be found here.

2008-03-20T11:24:00.000-07:00

DISCUSSION OF TJ 14

In response to a suggestion of Ben, I’ll place my response to one of Ben’s comments that refers to TJ 14 here, and he can further respond under the same thread. Others besides Ben are of course also invited to contribute here and above. There are no Matthean parallels to TJ 14.

2008-03-11T11:41:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-08-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

4th EDITION OF THE TJ NOW AVAILABLE

This edition continues the practice of its editor, Eduard Meier, with the help of his assistants and the TJ's publisher, to weed out errors and correct inaccuracies in the previous edition, especially in the English translation, and to add items of interest. The added items in this edition are:

1) an addendum entitled "Predictions of the Prophet Jeremiah,"

2) an addendum entitled "Predictions of the Prophet Elia (Elijah)," and

3) a photo of a small clay figure found within the packet along with the TJ rolls, after Meier and Rashid retrieved the packet from Jmmanuel's burial cave.

Regarding 1) and 2), Meier had these dictated to him by one of his ET contactors (Quetzal). Regarding 3), see under Mt 28:8 (or see TJ 31:27-31).

This 4th edition is available from Michael Horn's website, or from

the publisher, Steelmark.

It will keep me busy for several months to update my TJ website to accomodate the latest corrections.

2007-06-03T22:41:00.000-07:00

DID PILATE CALL HIM RIGHTEOUS?

In a recent or forthcoming article (NTS 53 (2007), pp. 344-358), Ryan Wettlaufer gives some arguments favoring Pilate having called Jesus a "righteous man" in Mt 27:24, as many of the better manuscripts contain the adjective "righteous" here. The TJ also gives "righteous" or "just" in its near parallel verses at TJ 29:54. However, most modern scholars, and bibles, prefer the reading of the manuscripts that omit "righteous." The argument supporting the TJ version is now given in my web page under the discussion of Matthew 27:24-25.

2005-07-13T17:36:00.000-07:00

CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK WELCOME

I would be interested in reading your constructive feedback on the Matthew-versus-TJ critiques I've presented. In particular, if you know of particular pieces of scholarly analyses I've overlooked that have bearing upon the arguments involved and are not based on false assumptions, I would be glad to learn of them and the associated references. Be sure to state which Matthean or TJ verse(s) you are commenting upon. However, before doing this, if you haven't already read the Introduction to these Matthean-TJ verse comparisons, I would ask that you do so.