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, May 31, 2014


Although it is the non-canonical or Gnostic writings that supply most of the direct clues that the man known as “Jesus Christ” had originally held the name “Immanuel,” we had previously come across mention of the name change in Hebrews 1:3-4. Now we know of another, in Philippians 2:8-9:

"And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name."

Evidently, Paul was not quite careful enough here to avoid any mention of the name change, which we must suspect was initiated and promoted by Paul himself, not by God. The verse makes it clear that the name that was bestowed upon the prophet & teacher, namely Jesus Christ, was supplied some time after the crucifixion. Hence he had held some other name until that time.

Phillipians is believed to have been written by Paul, but probably not the Epistle of Hebrews.

Though some New Testament (NT) scholars pay some attention to what the Gnostic writings have to say, they pay most attention to what’s in the NT itself. So it’s nice to learn of a 2nd instance, inadvertently brought to my attention thanks to Miguel Conner. As we know, there is no way that NT scholars would look into the Talmud Jmmanuel itself, but it’s possible to interest a few of them in the allowable evidence concerning the Immanuel-to-Jesus name change phenomenon. That is, until they learn it has a certain connection to the Billy Meier UFO contactee case, after which one does not hear back from even those few scholars.

Tuesday, May 06, 2014


Below is a recent addition to the rear of this web page of mine.

The 2011 edition of the TJ, though its English translation is still underway as of this update (May, 2014), is quite different from the earlier editions. It contains very lengthy “explanations” throughout involving a mixture of truth and fiction. I would conclude that it contain too much disinformation, supplied by Meier's ET contactors, to be at all reliable. Among many other things, it leads the unwary reader to believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written well before the packaged TJ (and a transcription of it) were brought from India to the Mideast; consequently one is led to believe that the writer of Matthew did not have the TJ on hand when penning his gospel. This last edition of the TJ seems designed to undermine any scholarly analysis that finds the early editions of the TJ to be basically genuine, and to dispel any thought that Matthew was dependent upon it. The earlier editions of the TJ have now become extra valuable.

This total revision -- indeed trashing -- of the TJ's earlier editions   may have been deemed necessary by the Plejarens if they had decided that through my own efforts and those of other Meier-case supporters, New Testament scholars:
(a) were coming close to being persuaded, through evidence they can accept,  that "Jesus" had originally been named "Immanuel," with the name change initiated by Paul, and that this change was successfully accomplished and covered up in the first few centuries CE; and
(b) might then connect the name "Immanuel" with the "Talmud Jmmanuel" and then explore the TJ sufficiently to learn its apparent truth and the Gospels' falsehoods ; and
(c) then journalists and certain media would, relatively suddenly,  spread the word to Christians and atheists, causing great and unacceptable turmoil.

 If so, the situation seems similar to the Plejarens having destroyed (trashed) the portion of the hillside in Jerusalem where the tomb site had been located in which Jmmanuel spent three days and nights. . 

Tuesday, February 11, 2014


Now and then I try to interest some reputable New Testament (NT) scholar in some particular revelation or aspect of the Talmud Jmmanuel (TJ). There are at least 6 or 8 of these revelations that they are either totally unfamiliar with or that would instantly turn them against the TJ unless they could be familiarized using argumentation acceptable within NT scholarship. One of these revelations is that the man’s name had been Immanuel before the change to “Jesus” was initiated by the “apostle” Paul. (The fact that, according to the TJ, his name should be written as “Jmmanuel” need not be addressed at first.) Only after enough NT scholars have learned the facts about the Immanuel-to-Jesus name change will some reporters and journalists on religion dare to present it to the public. I learned some 20 years ago not to try to bring the TJ itself to scholars’ attention, that being futile, though my web site remains available for any who come across it.

Recently I posted an abbreviated account of the name-change hypothesis on an NT scholar’s blog whose topic that day concerned the shortage of 1st-century evidence that Jesus had ever existed. We of course can immediately understand how this came about, since he was known as ”Immanuel” until the name-change efforts initiated by Saint Paul finally won out. But how could a typical NT scholar be made aware of this if they can’t be made aware of the reality of Billy Meier’s experiences and the discovery of the TJ?

In my first comment on the blog I informed the scholar of the four Gnostic writings that independently indicate the man’s name had been changed, that his real name was not to be uttered, and/or in cryptic terms that this name was Immanuel or Emmanuel. I also pointed out why this led to the name “Immanuel” not being mentioned in any 1st- and 2nd-century orthodox literature unless it was because Isaiah’s prophecy was being quoted (i.e., “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”). And I mentioned that the name-change hypothesis explains why, in quoting the prophecy, those early Christian writers improperly placed the last clause in the passive voice (i.e. “and his name shall be called Immanuel,” as if “Immanu-El” or “with-us God” were just an appellation or characterization). In the blog I refrained from spelling out this explanation, which is that these Christians believed the prophecy had come true because, a few generations after Immanuel’s ministry some still knew his actual name indeed had been Immanuel; yet the prophecy was a failed prophecy unless he had been given the name “Jesus” at birth. So by using the passive voice, they could make it seem that he was not called Immanuel until later, say after the crucifixion. I included the URL of my web page on this topic for details.

Well, in his response, the scholar dismissed the direct evidence from the Gnostic writings because they were Gnostic, hence non-orthodox, and from the 2nd- and 3rd centuries rather than the 1st century. He also misinterpreted the name-change hypothesis by wrongly claiming it says Paul “invented” both the name “Jesus” and the person behind the name. He ignored the rest.

In my response to his, I informed him again that the hypothesis is that Paul initiated the name change from Immanuel to Jesus, and did not invent the name “Jesus” or the man behind the name. He had nothing to say about the contradicting belief that Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy had come true in a child named “Jesus” rather than “Immanuel.” He had nothing to say about how the name change (which must have required many decades to become fully established) well explains the shortage of 1st-century writings about “Jesus.” In his response to this he called the hypothesis bizarre and ludicrous, saying “It’s a classic case of devising a view and then custom-cutting the data to fit it.”

In my response to that, I again pointed out the lack of mention of “Immanuel” outside of a few quotes of the Isaiah prophecy, at a time when early Christians should have been celebrating Immanuel prolifically since they believed Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy had been fulfilled.

But I was still waiting for any valid objection to the hypothesis. In his third response to mine, he finally made scholarly sense, though with invalid assumptions, as I would like to point out below, where I’ve numbered his four main points and respond to each one here:

[1] –There is no indication that Matthew or any other writer ever claimed that Jesus’ real name (or other name) was “Immanuel”. That’s a supposition on your part, and suppostions can’t serve as proof of anything else but themselves require evidence.

The hypothesis doesn’t claim that any follower of Paul’s theology called the man Immanuel. Instead they avoided that name and called him “Jesus.” However, certain later Gnostic writers did indicate that his name had been Immanuel; again this was ignored.

[2] –There is no evidence that Matthew or Justin or anyone else thought “immanuael” a forbidden name that had been put under wraps by Paul. That’s simply another wild claim on your part that has no evidence, and all that is required by way of refutation is to point this out.

As scholars often like to point out, “absence of evidence need not be the same as evidence of absence.” In a cover-up, evidence is destroyed or suppressed. We are just fortunate that in the 19th century various apocryphal and Gnostic writings were discovered and restored. There was very strong incentive for early Christian authorities, and independently Jewish authorities, to wipe out all writings mentioning Immanuel as the Savior or son of Mary.

[3] –Why did Matthew et al. regard Isa 7:14 as fulfilled in Jesus’ birth? Well, because they came to see Jesus as the Messiah and that on a grand scale, and found him prefigured then (in the logic of ancient Jewish regard for the OT) in many texts. The Hebrew “immanu el” (and in the Heb MT it’s not a name but a two-word appellative) obviously seemed to them a fitting expression of their faith that Jesus was the unique agent and expression of God’s purposes.

I did briefly point out that in the Great Isaiah (Dead Sea) scroll “Immanuel” is written (al three times) as a one-word name and NOT the two-word appellative “Immanu El”). It is in the centuries-later Jewish (Masoretic) text of the Scriptures that it is written as a two-word appellative. And even if it had been an appellative, no evidence has survived from the 1st and 2nd centuries to fulfill the prophecy that he would be called Immanuel. Also, “Jesus” was seen as the Messiah by Paul himself, well before any Gospel came out, and in affirming his belief he avoided any mention of Immanuel.

[4] –There is no evidence (again, only your assertion) that Paul suppressed “Immanuel” as a name for Jesus and invented the latter. This is so wildly improbable that it would generate a hearty laugh at any mooting of the claim among scholars, Jim. It’s not up to me to refute such a groundless claim; it’s up to you to establish the claim with evidence, not assertions.

On the contrary, that evidence is quite strong. In his epistles, Paul referred to Isaiah many times, and once to “the root of Jesse” as being Isaiah’s Messiah (Romans 15:12). How then could he not have referred to Isaiah’s famous Immanuel prophecy unless he was intent upon never mentioning the name “Immanuel”? There are several good reasons, from Paul’s perspective, why the name of the man whose followers he, as Saul, had hated should be replaced and not uttered. The Immanuelites must have been his chief opponents. And once again, the name-change hypothesis does not claim that Paul “invented” the name Jesus, but that after his conversion he insisted upon calling Immanuel by the name “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.” The evidence this scholar demanded on his blog has been presented to him, but his mind cannot seem to grasp it. No other readers of his blog commented upon the name-change hypothesis.

I cannot be certain that he was not one of the reviewers of my 10,000-word paper (the paper the above URL links to) that was under peer-review for nine months by a well known NT journal. But if so, he could not have done much more than skim its abstract.

Saturday, June 30, 2012


Recent argumentation, leaving aside the Talmud of Jmmanuel, shows this. It goes as follows:

A.) Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy (Isa 7:14) could be true and verified only if the would-be Messiah had been named “Immanuel” at birth. (It was to be his name, at birth, not just a title or characterization or symbology.)

B.) John the Baptist probably thought the prophecy had come true (Matthew 11:3-4); Paul definitely thought Isaiah’s prophecy had come true (Rom 15:12); the writer of Matthew definitely thought it was true (Mt 1:23) although he wrote that his name at birth was to be “Jesus” (Mt 1:21,25); Justin Martyr definitely believed it had come true (Dialogue with Trypho, Chaps. 43,66); and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, definitely believed it had come true (Adv. Haer. III.9.2, 19.1, 20.3, 21.4).

C.) If these persons were correct in believing that Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy had come true, then the messiah had indeed been named “Immanuel” at birth and during his life, until someone somehow had renamed him “Jesus.”

Supporting clues for this from Gnostic Gospels and elsewhere, along with a scenario of how it could all have come about, are given here.

If the prophesied messiah had been named "Immanuel" at birth, John the Baptist would have known this, of course, and would not have been confronted with any contradiction. But how could Paul have ignored this contradiction (and never ever mentioned "Immanuel" in his Epistles), and so also the writer of Matthew, Justin and Irenaeus? The latter even emphasized "the name Emmanuel" and "born Emmanuel of the virgin." One may also ask, how could NT scholars have ignored the contradiction for so long? Just because modern science has no clue how a particular long-range prophecy could be fulfilled is no reason for ignoring the fact that 4 or 5 important personages of that era believed it had been fulfilled and thereby accepted the contradiction.

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.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

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.

Saturday, June 06, 2009


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).

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.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009


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.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009


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 .

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.

Monday, October 13, 2008


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.