Mt 3:1 1In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea.TJ 3:1 1In due course, John the Baptist came to the edge of the wilderness and preached at the banks of the Jordan.
THE PROBLEM. Here, Beare (p. 88) noted that Matthew's wilderness area must be taken to include at least the lower reaches of the Jordan valley. He could not believe that John would do his preaching in one region and lead the people to another region for their baptisms, which wouldn't have made sense. Beare also pointed out that the wilderness, or desert, was no place for a preacher to attract large crowds.
SOLUTION. The TJ verse is not subject to Beare's criticisms, as the Baptist's preaching occurred at the edge of the wilderness area. The compiler's reason for altering the TJ verse was no doubt to make it consistent with his scriptural insertion two verses later (see below) involving "the voice of one crying in the wilderness."
The odds seem high that the writer of Matthew fictionalized his source to some extent here, whereas it seems rather unlikely that a literary hoaxer would have noticed this discrepant detail. Together these suggest to me that for this piece of evidence, PHoax @ 0.3, given that either the TJ was derived from Matthew or Matthew was derived from the TJ. Of course, those who assume Matthew was derived from Mark would blame the illogic or problem upon the writer of Mark; however, that writer is known for his lack of geographical knowledge of the Palestine area, so that it is consistent that he would not have detected and corrected the problem when forming his gospel primarily out of Matthew.
Mt 3:3 3For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
TJ [No cognate]
THE PROBLEM. Beare (pp. 89-90) showed that this verse was not the original meaning of Isaiah (40:3), who meant God, not Jesus, when referring to "Lord," and whose main thought was not of preaching in the wilderness, but of building a new roadway there.
SOLUTION. Relative to the TJ, Mt 3:2-3 is a substitution for TJ material that speaks of Creation being above El, that is, above "God" in all attributes. This must have been heretical to the compiler, to read that El was not true God the Creator (Creation), but was an entity (ET) less than Creation. Thus he had to omit the TJ verses or substitute something else for them. He did the latter.
In assessing a probability value to the absence of a TJ cognate here, we can only note that the Matthean verse is quite definitely bogus, whereas a literary hoaxer might not have known this. PHoax @ 0.45
Mt 3:5-6 5Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
TJ 3:7 7All Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went forth to John the Baptist and acknowledged the wisdom of the old laws of El, and they let themselves be baptized by him in the river Jordan.
THE PROBLEM. Beare (pp. 91-92) remarked upon the improbability that the people being baptized would have made individual confessions to John of their sins. And of course Christian confessional creeds had not yet been composed. Beare suggested that perhaps no words of confession were spoken at all. He noted that the historian, Josephus (in book 18 of the Jewish Antiquities), writing well before the Gospels came out, thought John had conducted his baptisms for the sake of purifying the righteous, not for the benefit of sinners.
SOLUTION. From the TJ verse we see that confession of sins was not involved, or not stated to have been involved. Beare seems to have been correct. If confession had been involved, surely John, as a matter of procedure, would have asked Jesus to confess his sins.
It is evident that the writer of Matthew would not have utilized the TJ's text of the people having "acknowledged the wisdom of the old laws of El" during baptism, because from the TJ he had read what this had entailed, including "to obey the laws of nature and live according to them." This was unacceptable, as it did not stem from the Torah as he knew it. PHoax @ 0.4.
Mt 3:7 7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"
TJ 3:9-10 9While he was baptizing many of the people, many Pharisees and Sadducees came to him who humiliated him with malicious talk. 10But John the Baptist spoke: "You brood of vipers, who told you that you will escape from future wrath, once your false teachings are revealed?"
THE PROBLEM. In Mt 3:7 John the Baptist starts right out rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees without there being any mention of any immediate prior provocation. This seems strange or out of character for a preacher held in the highest esteem by Jesus. Just as important, we note how improbable it would be for Pharisees and Sadducees to wish to be baptized by someone who called them a "brood of vipers," and called for them to repent.
SOLUTION. The TJ (3:9), on the other hand, first mentions the taunting by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Only after that came John's name-calling and rebukes. And in the TJ verse, it is "the people" who were baptized, not Pharisees and Sadducees. These objections to the realism of the Matthean verse seem not to be known, or at least not readily to be found in the scholarly literature. PHoax @ 0.2
The meaning of "the wrath to come" referred to in Matthew may not have been clear to its listeners; it is usually assumed to mean the punishment to be inflicted by God on the day of judgment (Zep 1:15). From the TJ verse, however, we see that the "future wrath" refers to the great anger that will ensue amongst followers of the religion when they finally learn that the teachings they had been observing were false. Obviously, the "false teachings" portion of the verse had to be omitted by the writer of Matthew, since he believed in the Torah.
This is the first mention of Pharisees or Sadducees in the TJ or in Matthew. It is interesting that in the TJ they are introduced realistically as "Pharisees and Sadducees," while in Matthew as "the Pharisees and Sadducees," as if the reader had come across them before. This makes good sense if the writer of Matthew had come across them before, in his readings of the TJ prior to writing his gospel, and forgot to rephrase it properly as in a story of his own authorship. The two groups appear linked together three other times in the TJ.
Mt 3:8-10 8"Bear fruit that befits repentance, 9and do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
TJ 3:11-18 11"See to it that you bear righteous fruit of repentance and learn the truth. 12Turn away from the evil of your false teachings, which you carry out with arrogance and pursuant with your greed for power and fortune. 13Do not think just of saying to each other: 'We have Abraham as father.' 14I say to you, with his knowledge and his power, El is able to raise up children to Abraham out of these stones, because he has knowledge of the secret of Creation. 15Already the axe has been laid at the root of the trees. Therefore, any tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be hewn down and thrown into the fire. 16You brood of vipers, in two times a thousand years you and your followers, who pursue false teachings out of your own arrogance in your greed for power and fortune, shall be vanquished and, on account of your lies, punished. 17So it shall be, when humankind begins to comprehend, and when the chaff is separated from the grain. 18It will be at the time when your false teachings will be laughed at and humankind discovers the truth."
THE PROBLEM. Here in Matthew, Beare (p. 93) mentioned that these verses, with their great brevity, fail to give an adequate summary of the essence of John's teaching. Beare could presume that a larger body of material from John the Baptist was available to the writer of Matthew, but that he utilized only that part of it which tied in most closely with the message of Jesus.
SOLUTION. The TJ presents a very substantial message from John and so does not suffer from Beare's criticism. John's speech, which extends beyond what is presented here, is in general agreement with Jmmanuel's message given later in the TJ, causing one to suspect that John had also been a contactee of the same ETs from the region of the Pleiades. From the TJ we find greater reason why John was considered to be a prophet.
The fact that Beare's objection is little known, and that a literary hoaxer would take quite a risk adding material that might give a hoax away, suggests to me that the odds for a hoax in the case of the above verse comparison is quite small. However, a typical skeptic might feel that the mention of "two times a thousand years" indicates a hoaxer was using hindsight from our own time, while dismissing the thought that such a person as a long-range prophet could actually have existed. Thus I assign PHoax @ 0.5 here.
Now, the question may arise, How natural is it to have expressed 2,000 years as "two times a thousand years"? We know from the Bible that to express a sum as one number times another number was not too unusual. In the Old Testament one finds the expressions, "seven times seven years," and "a hundred times as many as they are." In Matthew we find "seventy times seven." Hence "times" was used then in the same multiplicative sense as now. However, numbers were usually expressed in the Hebraic langauge without the "times," and when it comes to a large number of years, one finds "a thousand years" expressed as such only once (Ps 90:4). This could be because it was an unimaginably long time span. The only time span longer than that in the Bible occurs in Ecclesiastes, and is expressed as "a thousand years twice told" (Eccl 6:6), which means two-thousand years. Hence it should not seem surprising that the TJ's writer usually used the similar expression: "two times a thousand years," for expressing this huge time span. However, he twice used the expression "two thousand years," indicating that either usage was optional for him.
Mt 3:11a 11"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry."
TJ 3:22-23a 22"Oh you renegades, you brood of vipers, get away from this place, because you are impure and cursed in your false teachings. 23Get away from this place, because I can by my own accord baptize you into repentance only with water; but he who comes after me is stronger than I, and I am not worthy of removing his sandals."
DISCUSSION. Two major differences here are worth discussing. In Matthew, John apparently baptized the Pharisees and Sadducees after speaking very harshly to them, calling them a brood of vipers. This would be an improbable event, as noted under Mt 3:7. In the TJ, however, John shoos the Pharisees and Sadducees away with even more harsh language and does not baptize them, apparently because he feels that baptism by water alone would not be enough to bring those particular people to repentance.
Second, in Matthew John admits to being not worthy to carry Jesus' sandals, while in the TJ he admits to not being worthy to unfasten Jmmanuel's sandals. It turns out that in Hebrew the words for "carry" and "unfasten" are very similar. On the other hand, Mark's parallel involves unworthiness to stoop down and untie the thongs of the sandals (Mk 1:7). From the present point of view the sequence of editing suggested by this is: (a) the writer of Matthew carried this small part over properly from the TJ into his Hebraic gospel, (b) the writer of Mark properly interpreted Hebraic Matthew's words here, though expanding upon them as was his style when not omitting sections, (c) the later translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek misinterpreted the word to mean "carry," and (d) the writer of Luke followed Mark here, rather than Matthew, as was his usual style when the two gospels differed.
Mt 3:11b 11"...he [Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
TJ 3:23b 23"...He will baptize you with the knowledge of the spirit and with the fire of truth."
THE PROBLEM. Beare (p. 94) pointed out the great likelihood that "Holy Spirit" here is a (later) Christian interpretation of John's words.
SOLUTION. From this verse comparison, and others to come, we find that knowledge and truth are nothing the compiler thought Jmmanuel, alias Jesus, should possess, since they have nothing to do with forgiving men their sins. And if people were encouraged to seek after truth, they would start questioning the truth of the teachings of the scribes and the church. Hence, the TJ verse had to be edited, with the human spirit being altered into the Holy Spirit and "knowledge" omitted.
It is unlikely that a literary hoaxer would invent the theme that the writer of Matthew did not wish truth to be the concern of the Christian, and realize that Matthew's "fire" could have derived from a longer phrase that would make sense, and realize that "Holy Spirit" in connection with baptism here was anachronistic. PHoax @ 0.25.
Now, in Matthew it is the Pharisees and Sadducees whom John is baptizing. However, in all the rest of Matthew, Jesus never baptized Pharisees and Sadducees, whether with the Holy Spirit and fire or with water. So this verse may be classed as another example of Matthean "fatigue." After making his alteration in what John said, and in continuing to make many other alterations to the TJ's material, the writer forgot to invent a later verse that would demonstrate Jesus baptizing Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mt 3:16 16And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him.
TJ 3:30 When Jmmanuel had been baptized, he soon came out of the water of the Jordan, and behold, a metallic light came down from the sky and rushed over the Jordan.
THE PROBLEMS. According to Leander Keck, various readings of this verse "reveal that there is no single tradition of the dove, and that its meaning was problematic from the start."[1] He went on to survey the various interpretations that have been placed on the dove symbology, all being relatively uncertain.
Also, what does it mean to say, "the heavens were opened?" Was not the sky always open on a clear day? (The Greek word for heaven or heavens: ouranoV, also means "sky.") The expression seems to derive from Ez 1:1.
We may further note that "spirit" is something immaterial and unseen. Hence, it could not have been seen by Jesus, "alighting" upon him or "coming upon him" as if it were a material object like a dove landing on his shoulder. This imagery seems to stem from Is 42:1.
SOLUTION. What we are apparently seeing here is the compiler making full use of his wide knowledge of the Jewish literature while weeding out heresies from the TJ. He understood that what was described here was of a similar nature to what Ezekiel encountered with the "wheel within a wheel," and so utilized Ezekiel's introduction of "the heavens were opened" (Ez 1:1) as his own introduction to the Jordan River event. The idea for the compiler to alter an unknown metallic-looking object (UFO) in the TJ into the Spirit of God in Matthew then appears to have derived from Ez 11:5 ("And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me," or from Is 42:1 ("...I [God] have put my spirit upon him..."). The likely connection between these Old and New Testament verses is discussed by Borg.[2] Other names for a UFO in the Bible are "God's glory," "pillar of cloud" and "pillar of fire" or "chariot of fire."
The writer's choice of a bird to represent the descended Holy Spirit should not be too surprising. According to C. S. Mann, "The descent of a bird—especially a dove—upon a chosen person is a common motif in ancient Near Eastern legend."[3] The choice of dove may also have emanated from it being a symbol of innocence and from the desire to emphasize Jesus' innocent and sinless nature. Adding to this is the symbology of the dove in representing the "perfect one," as in the Song of Solomon 6:9, and the dove's importance in the story of Noah's ark (Gn 8:8-12).
The TJ is not subject to any of these problems, while avoiding them in an uncontrived manner; hence the likelihood of a literary hoax here seems rather small. However, a supporter of the hoax hypothesis may claim that since awareness of UFOs is a part of the New Age movement, a New Age hoaxer fed it in here. Yet, the very strong evidence pointing to the reality of the UFO phenomenon and all that it explains within Old Testament Merkabah mysticism, more than cancels this claim. PHoax @ 0.35.
Mt 3:17 17and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."TJ 3:31-32 31Consequently they all fell on their faces and pressed them into the sand while a voice from the metallic light spoke, 32"This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. He will be the king of truth, through which terrestrial humans shall rise as wise ones."
THE PROBLEMS. It has been pointed out by John Meagher that it is surprising the reader is "given no information about how Jesus or the others who are present reacted to such remarkable happenings."[4] Although Meagher's question was directed at the text of Mark, which he assumed was the first gospel, it applies equally well to Matthew due to the close parallels between the two.
A minor problem is that the Greek text of Matthew reads "with whom I was well pleased." According to M. Black, this may be a Semitism—the static perfect tense improperly rendered.[5]
SOLUTION. Meagher's observation was quite perceptive. One sees from the TJ that all the people there were awestruck and/or scared to death, except for Jmmanuel (and perhaps John?). Quite likely he had experienced the presence of his father and his "sky chariot" on a few previous occasions during his years in India, and so was not too startled.
The writer of Matthew apparently felt that there was no need to include the fear factor upon portraying the situation as one of the Spirit of God descending like a dove. But he could not of course have included the second sentence of TJ 3:32, since Jesus was to be a figure of worship much more than a teacher of truth and wisdom. The TJ verse shows impressive realism in a manner seemingly too creative for a hoaxer to have invented, while not being subject to Matthew's problems: PHoax @ 0.2.
If the estimated probabilities that the TJ is a hoax from just the TJ-Mt 3 verse comparisons are accumulated, one finds an overall probability of 0.0022.
TJ 3:33-4:51 33Behold, after these words Jmmanuel entered into the metallic light, which climbed into the sky, surrounded by fire and smoke, and passed over the lifeless sea, as the singing of the metallic light soon faded away. 34After that, Jmmanuel was no longer seen for forty days and nights...4:51Thus they spoke, the celestial sons between the North and the West, before bringing Jmmanuel in the metallic light back to Israel, to the land of Galilee.
THE PROBLEMS. This is the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Beare (p. 105) noted that, even symbolically, one probably should not think of the wilderness as the abode of the devil, which this story does. His abode was supposed to be in Hades. Beare also noted that the discussion between the devil and Jesus should not be likened to any real conversation. His particular criticisms of individual verses within the story are logical but too numerous to present.
Even a casual reader can spot the contradiction of God's spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil himself, whereas Jesus (later) taught his followers to pray to their Father (God) not to be led into temptation. One wonders where "the Spirit" went after it had turned Jesus over to the devil. Since it was the one who turned Jesus over, why did it not later pick him up after his 40-day ordeal rather than leave that task to the angels? But did the angels return Jesus to civilization, where he could learn of John's imprisonment, or not? When and how did the angels leave? Why are we not told any of this?
The title "Son of God" appears for the first time in Matthew within this section. One wonders why the writer did not introduce it earlier, within the Nativity section of Matthew, so as to emphasize the connection between the divine Sonship of Jesus and the miraculous conception.[6]
SOLUTION. This TJ section (50 verses are omitted here) is very interesting reading, containing descriptions of the celestial sons and some of their marvels (which seem to have prompted Mt 4:8), a portrayal of El their leader, a brief summary of their history, distinctions between El and Creation, some prophecies for the human race and discussion of Jmmanuel's mission, among other things. However, it is almost as heretical today as it was 1,900 years ago, so that the compiler of Matthew had no orthodox choice but to omit it all in forming his gospel. He evidently considered it the work of the devil, and so substituted for it his story that Jesus was being tempted by the devil in the wilderness during the 40 days and nights.
The Son of God title fit in well with the compiler's desire to show that Jesus could overcome the temptations presented by the devil, and outsmart him in quoting from the Scriptures. Probably, he did not introduce the title earlier, in the Nativity, because of his appreciation of the argument, already presented for him in the TJ, that Jmmanuel was descended from David and Abraham according to Jewish traditions of patriarchy. To call Jesus "Son of God" so soon after presenting him as the son of Mary could have been awkward. In the TJ, Jmmanuel is of course not called the Son of God, except once when Peter called him as much, mistaking his father to have been El or "El" rather than Gabriel.
It is not particularly improbable that a literary hoaxer could recognize Mt 4:1-11 to be Matthean fiction, and thus not include it. However, the TJ must be read here to understand how improbable it is that a literary hoaxer could generate the 51 verses for which the Matthean pericope substitutes, and how probable that the writer of Matthew would greatly abbreviate and alter it, since he could utilize scriptural verses from Exodus (34:28), Deuteronomy (6:13,16; 8:3) and Psalms (91:11-12). PHoax @ 0.1.
It may be noticed that Mark (Mk 1:12-13) contains only a two-verse summary of the Temptation story. It is more plausible for a redactor to greatly abbreviate a story—in this case Matthew's 11 verses of the Temptation story—than to proceed in the opposite direction and build an 11-verse story out of a 2-verse summary. This is but one of many reasons why we find it plausible that Matthew preceded Mark. It is consistent with the overall editorial profile of the writer of Mark if he greatly abbreviated the story because he felt its extensive Old Testament quotations would not be of interest to his gentile audience.
Mt 4:12-13 12Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee; 13and leaving Nazareth he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,
TJ 4:52 52When Jmmanuel heard that John the Baptist had been imprisoned, he left the town of Nazareth, came and lived in Capernaum, which lies on the sea in the land of Sebulon and Naphtali.
THE PROBLEMS. In Matthew it is not clear where Jesus had been before he withdrew into Galilee. At last mention, in the previous verse, he had been left in the wilderness. But in the wilderness he could not have learned about John having been imprisoned. So, where did he go after leaving the wilderness in order to hear about John? According to Mt 4:12, it was somewhere else than in Galilee that he heard about John.
The unexplained lack of any transition between Mt 4:12 and Mt 4:13 has been pointed out by various analysts.[7] Jesus goes to Galilee, leaves there for no mentioned reason and goes to Capernaum.
SOLUTION. These problems do not occur with the TJ, as is seen from the previous TJ verse (presented in the previous segment): Jmmanuel learned about John's imprisonment after being returned to Galilee, and this prompted him to leave Nazareth. We see that the writer of Matthew, when editing his source, left a very rough transition between the end of the actual 40-day event and the beginning of Jmmanuel's ministry in the land of Israel. He did not wish to mention how Jesus had been transported back to Galilee, and so he placed his mention of Galilee after his mention of Jesus having heard of John's arrest. This then led to the problem mentioned above. The TJ verses allow us to infer that it was in Nazareth itself, or possibly nearby in Galilee, that Jmmanuel heard of the news about John.
It is difficult to conceive that if a literary hoaxer were astute enough to recognize these problems, which is not very probable, he could avoid them both so deftly. PHoax @ 0.2.
Mt 4:14-16 14that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 15"The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— 16the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
TJ [No cognate]
THE PROBLEM. It has been pointed out (Beare, p. 115) that Mt 4:15-16 in no way does justice to the setting that Isaiah actually had in mind for his verses. Beare could see that the writer of Matthew brought in these verses from Isaiah on his own, in keeping with their introductory verse, Mt 4:13, in order to enhance the Messianic image of Jesus.
SOLUTION. The TJ's lack of cognate is consistent with Beare being correct here. However, Beare tended to imply that Mt 4:13 was a redaction also, whereas the TJ indicates it is a good rendition of its verse (TJ 4:52b). This latter verse then, which mentions Zebulun and Naphtali, is apparently what brought the Isaiah citation to the compiler's mind.
It is rather improbable that a New Age hoaxer would have omitted this verse from his fabrication, since light, as opposed to darkness, goes along with New Age concepts of enlightenment. PHoax @ 0.35.
Mt 4:17 17From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
TJ 4:53 53From that time onward Jmmanuel began to preach, saying, "Repent and turn to the truth and knowledge, because they alone bring you life!"
THE PROBLEM. Beare (p. 88) attributes this verse to the redactor-writer of Matthew because it merely repeats what John the Baptist reportedly had said in Mt 3:2.
SOLUTION. The TJ supports Beare's deduction. However, its use of the word "repent" appears to be what prompted the writer of Matthew to recall what he had written earlier regarding John the Baptist, and so to utilize Mt 3:2 a second time. Obviously, he did not wish to emphasize Jmmanuel's teaching on seeking truth and knowledge, since that would detract too much from the orthodox view of Jesus being a figure of worship: only Jesus himself could bring (everlasting) life. Thus the writer substituted his earlier verse for this unacceptable TJ material. In the TJ, Jmmanuel in its above verse does not repeat any of its wording of John, though what he says above does include John's admonition to "learn the truth" that is found in TJ 3:11. PHoax @ 0.35.
Mt 4:19 19And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
TJ 4:55 55And he said to them, "Follow me; I will teach you knowledge and make you fishers of people." 56Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
THE PROBLEM. On Jesus' ability to enlist helpers, or disciples, Beare (p. 117) commented that it obviously could not have happened so abruptly as this, implying that there had to be more of an inducement than just to become "fishers of men."
SOLUTION. In the TJ verse the extra words are few, but the inducement of acquiring knowledge from a man who could demonstrate the power of his spirit was great. Thus the TJ indicates that Jmmanuel's acquisition of new disciples did occur swiftly. One continues to find that the idea of either the disciples or the common people becoming educated beyond church teaching was unacceptable in the eyes of the writer who compiled the TJ into Matthew. This writer quite likely had once been a scribe, as is pointed out elsewhere in this analysis, and the person who was wise enough to teach knowledge in those days was most notably identified as being the church scribe.[8] Thus, with the hindsight provided by the TJ, the ex-scribe who compiled Matthew seems to have resented the idea that the common man could become as educated as he, or more educated, through everyday learning outside of the church. Therefore, phrases involving the seeking of knowledge on a personal level were edited out by the compiler, causing one scholar to comment upon its omission: "Perhaps the most striking [omission] is the lack of any admonition to seek wisdom."[9] The TJ indicates that this element had indeed been present in Jmmanuel's original message. PHoax @ 0.2.
Mt 4:23 23And he went all about Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people.
TJ 4:60 60Jmmanuel went about in the whole land of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the knowledge of the spirit and healing all diseases and infirmities among the people.
THE PROBLEM. Why did the writer of Matthew refer to the synagogues, there in the land where Jesus supposedly was raised since childhood, as their synagogues? If Jesus was a Jew, these were his synagogues as much as anybody else's synagogues. This was a sufficient peculiarity to attract the attention of Beare (p. 121).
SOLUTION. The portion of the TJ that survived was written only some years after Jmmanuel's Palestinian ministry was over, by a disciple who by then had traveled to, or was en route to, the land of India with Jmmanuel and one or two others. This disciple knew that neither he nor Jmmanuel would ever be returning to Palestine, so they must no longer have thought of themselves as Palestinians or Israelites or Jews since, as one learns from further reading of the TJ, they considered much of the Torah, and especially the teachings of scribes and Pharisees, to be false, distorted or incomplete. Thus Jmmanuel and/or Judas referred to "their" synagogues instead of to "the" synagogues, "his" synagogues or "our" synagogues. The writer of Matthew then overlooked this little detail, and copied the TJ's "their synagogues" without alteration. The writer of Matthew himself retained a largely Jewish outlook, and so would not likely have written "their synagogues" of his own composition even if he then lived in Ephesus or Antioch, where there were Jewish communities.
Beare's suggested solution to the problem was that Jesus was preaching in Aramaic just to Israelites (the lost sheep of Israel), while the people of Galilee may have included more Greeks than Jews. But this does not seem to be a viable solution, since the synagogues themselves were not Greek, but were Jewish. PHoax @ 0.3.
Upon accumulating the estimated probabilities that the TJ is a hoax from just the TJ-Mt 4 verse comparisons, one finds a summary probability of 0.00086.
| Go Back to: | Go On to: | |
| Verse Comparison, Introduction & Index | Matthew 5 |
1. Keck, Leander E., "The spirit and the dove," NTS 17 (1970), pp. 41-67; see p. 41.
2. Borg, Marcus, Jesus: A New Vision (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), p. 30.
3. Mann, C. S., The Anchor Bible: Mark (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1986), p. 200.
4. Meagher, John C., Clumsy Construction in Mark's Gospel (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979), p. 40.
5. Black, Matthew An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 128.
6. Verseput, Donald J., "The role and meaning of the 'Son of God,' title in Matthew's Gospel," NTS 33 (1987), pp. 532-556; see p. 532.
7. See, for example, Marxsen, Willi, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1969), p. 96.
8. McKenzie, John L., "Reflections on wisdom," JBL 86 (1967), pp. 1-9; see p. 2.
9. Carlston, Charles E., "Proverbs, maxims and the historical Jesus," JBL 99 (1980), pp. 87-105; see p. 92.