The TJ's Genuineness

Antiquity deduced from lack of punctuation
Ancient history elucidated
The dependence of Matthew upon the TJ
  Differences between the 1978 and 1992 TJ editions  

The dating and genuineness of an ancient text is customarily investigated or affirmed through radiocarbon dating and paleography -- comparing its writing style with that of known ancient documents, and by noting the type of paper or parchment it is written on and its degree of aging. Without the originals, as in the case of the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ), one has only its surviving co-discoverer's word that it had been in the form of four rolls of writing, whose leaves were somewhat crumbly in places despite the resin encasement surrounding the leather in which they had been preserved. However, this is much more than scholars have to go on with respect to their studies of the New Testament gospels, for example, for which neither the originals nor their first translations or copies, nor their second copies... exist, and for which of course no eyewitness testimony exists. Thus the genuineness of the TJ has to be determined through indirect means. The question as to whether or not it could be a hoax then may continually arise.

The conclusoions below apply primarioly to the early editions of the TJ up through the 2001 edition, but not to the 2011 German edition and its later translations.


When the TJ rolls were translated into German during the years between 1963 and about 1970, occasional peculiarities within the Aramaic writing found their way into the German text, through having been translated rather literally. These are called Aramaisms. The most definite ones that have come to this investigator's attention are as follows:

1.) TJ 3:30-31      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. Consequently they all fell on their faces and pressed them into the sand while a voice from the metallic light spoke: "This is my son..."

Here "fell on their faces" is an Aramaism meaning "to bow down or cower before." In this case the expression can be taken more literally than usual due to the fear that a close-up UFO encounter would instill in bewildered witnesses.

Now, the Old Testament has many instances of this usage, and even Matthew has four (at Mt 2:11, 17:6, 18:29 and 26:39). Hence a knowledgeable hoaxer could have built this Aramaism into his fabrication. Yet, there is a definite possibility that it would not have occurred to a New Age hoaxer interested in UFOs, who might have written something like, "...they all trembled in fright." The first and fourth of these Matthean Aramaisms have parallels in the TJ (at TJ 2:16 and 28:10), which the writer of Matthew appears to have carried over into his gospel, while including the other two within his fabricated insertions.

On the other hand, the TJ has two other Aramaisms of this kind not in Matthew -- at the Gethsemane event at TJ 28:13,15. In these latter two, as well as in TJ 28:10, the German text states that Jmmanuel "fell on his face" and spoke, though the English translation used the expression "prostrated himself" in all three, thereby removing the Aramaism. The question may arise, why didn't the writer of Matthew use the same "fell on his face" expression in his parallels to TJ 28:13,15 at Mt 26:42,44? The answer is unknown, but could be that in his opinion it displayed an excess of weakness and fear on Jmmanuel's part.

2.) TJ 5:30      "If a thought causes you annoyance, eradicate it and ban it from your brain. It is better to destroy a thought that incites annoyance and not to bring the whole world of thought into an uproar.

This is a literal translation of the German, in order to bring out the Aramaism, which is "and not." (The expression is present in all German editions of the TJ but edited out of the English editions.) If the translator, Rashid, had been concerned with rendering this into better German, he would have used the common German word "als" here, meaning "than," instead of "and not" (und nicht). Evidently, he made a rather literal translation. The Aramaic language lacked the capability for expressing this comparative sense in the manner we are used to (e.g., see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels, 3rd Ed., 1967, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 117), not possessing the direct equivalent of "than," and so other language was used to put across the intended thought. Although this TJ verse is not closely paralleled by the German Bible's Mt 5:30, both utilize "und nicht," as do their immediately preceding verse. Hence the evidence for TJ originality in this instance can be no more than suggestive, as a literary hoaxer might have been astute enough not to slip up by using "als."

3.) TJ 15:14      "What would be better to make them come alive and think, if not through speaking in parables!"

This may also be an Aramaism, of the same nature. "if not through" ("wenn nicht durch") here could more conveniently have been rendered "than by" if its equivalent had been present in the Aramaic language, which doesn't contain a word for "than". This verse refers to Jmmanuel's explanation as to why he spoke in parables to the people on that day.

4.) TJ 24:14      "It is unwise and foolish for people to let others consider themselves greater or smaller as they really are."

Here, the word used, in all German editions, in the comparison was "so," which means "as" or "so" in English. Although in translation from the Aramaic into German and Denglish the comparative endings "er" to "great" and "small" were properly expressed, the appropriate comparative word, "than" ("als" in German) was not. In the English translation, "than" was used, so that the Aramaism does not show up there.

A very definite Aramaism occurs in the following transliterated German sentence, from:

5.) TJ 4:51      "So spoke they, the celestial sons between the North and the West, before they brought Jmmanuel in the metallic light back to Israel..."

(The German, in all the TJ's editions, reads, "So sprachen sie, die Himmelssöhne...")

The italicized words constitute the Aramaism, called the proleptic pronoun (M. Black, p. 96). It involves the use of a pronoun in the nominative case (they) preceding a noun (son) to be emphasized. It is uncommon in German, but was not uncommon in Aramaic.

6.) TJ 13:6      "Truly, I say to you, you brood of snakes and vipers: A stone will turn into bread before no work may be done on the Sabbath."

TJ 13:6 in the German: Wahrlich, ich sage euch, ihr Schlangen- und Otterngezücht: Eher wird ein Stein zu Brot werden, ehe an einem Sabbat keine Arbeit verrichtet werden darf.

This verse does not occur within the Gospels; in Matthew, Mt 12.6 replaces it. A saying about turning a stone into bread would not likely have been used in the original Aramaic unless the two words bore some special relationship to each other. The Aramaic word for "bread" could have been (in transliteration) "repha," and for "stone" was "kepha," according to Frank Zimmermann (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1979; p. 78) in his analysis of Mt 7:9. This possibility has been confirmed to me by professor Bruce Chilton, Dept. of Theology, Bard College (private communication). Thus it was likely the rhyming wordplay in Aramaic between the two words that prompted their usage here. The same wordplay occurs again in Mt 7:9, which is a parallel to TJ 7:13. A similar wordplay in English would be like: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but..."

The writer of Matthew omitted this and adjacent TJ verses. This was probably because they much more strongly oppose the law against violating the Sabbath than he could condone, and because they go on to speak of logic and the laws of nature and of Creation.

Jmmanuel spoke frequently of "logic," a word of Greek derivation. Since the TJ indicates that Jmmanuel had been to the land of India and back, before commencing his Palestinian ministry, he had ample opportunity to learn of Greek thought and the rules of logic during his travels along the Silk Road. And his education from the extraterrestrials, as during the 40 days and nights with them, likely exposed him further to the concept of logic. One TJ verse indicates with certainty that Jmmanuel had received some education in Greek thought: TJ 36:25, where he states that a principle of the oldest wisdom is that "humans are the measure of all things." This expression appears to derive from Plato (in Theaetetus) in the 4th century B.C. Besides this, it is definitely known that there was an Aramaic word for "logic" in Syriac as well as the Greek loan word for "logic" in Syriac, which was the dialect spoken right next to Palestine.

Although it might be claimed that the foregoing Aramaisms were fabricated by a clever hoaxer, who may have known of it from Mt 7:9, it really is not very probable that a New Age hoaxer would have been sufficiently knowledgeable to have done so.

7.) "Amen" or "Truly."

The use of "Amen," which means "truly" and is usually translated as such, is a Semitism when occurring at the beginning of a sentence or quotation. In the TJ it occurs 56 times in addition to those occurrences in Matthew that parallel this TJ word. In another 11 places in the TJ it occurs in repeated form: "Truly, truly," which does not occur in the synoptic gospels. However it does occur frequently in the Gospel of John. The writer of that gospel is seen, from comparison of several of its verses with the TJ, to have had access to the TJ.

8.) "Behold!"

It was a very common Semitic word, which is "Siehe!" (See!) in the German, "idou" (look or behold) in the Greek, and simply "ha'" in Aramaic. Because of its frequent use in the Gospels, scholars, such as M.-J. Lagrange, have known since the early 20th century that it represents an Aramaism. Besides the many instances of its use within TJ verses having parallels to verses within the Gospel of Matthew, there are 42 other instances of its use in TJ verses having no parallel within the Gospels.

Now, a literary hoaxer would likely have been intelligent enough to notice frequent uses of "Behold" and "Truly" in Matthew and build them into his work, just as the writers of Matthew, Luke and John are deduced to have done in expanding upon Mark -- the usual scholarly assumption. However, the further occurrences of "Amen" and "Behold" in the TJ is, at the least, consistent with its genuineness.

9.) "two times a thousand years"

This expression in the German: "zweimal tausend Jahre(n)" occurs five times in the TJ. The ordinary way of expressing it in German is as "zweitausend Jahre," as in English (two thousand years). The explicit use of "times" to represent multiplication in large numbers is known from various biblical passages up through the Gospel of Matthew (see link). However, this phraseology does occur in some old-style German literature, of which a would-be hoaxer might be aware. Nevertheless, it is listed here, along with "Behold!" and "Amen," as an example of where a hoaxer may have slipped up and just written "zweitausend Jahre." That doesn't occur in the TJ.

Antiquity deduced from lack of punctuation

ANSWERED AND SAID. Because there was no punctuation within the ancient texts, it was frequently the custom in Aramaic to alert the reader to the beginning of a quotation through use of an expression like "He answered and said...", with the "said" indicating the start of the quotation. When this carried over into the German, its English translation was often rendered as "He answered, saying,....". A TJ example of this, upon rendering the German literally, is:

TJ 28:41      But Jmmanuel answered and spoke: "Truly I say to you: You may succeed for a long time in accusing Judas Iscariot of treason in front of the people, but the truth will come out and be known by all in the entire world."

Notice the two verbs "answered and spoke." English translations of this often omit the redundant "and spoke," which indicates how easily such an Aramaism can be lost through translation.

Two more such instances occur, with a literal translation of the German, in:

TJ 29:45-46      Slowly the screaming stopped, and the governor raised his voice a third time and asked and spoke: "Which one of these two shall I release?" The people cried out and spoke, "Free Barabbas!"

Two others occur in the following:

TJ 31:12-13      But Mary asked and spoke, "Yet he was dead and lay here dead, how can he rise?" But the guardian angel answered and spoke, "Why are you seeking someone alive among the dead?"

The above examples occur in verses not having parallels within the Gospels, since these verses were unacceptable to the early church and could not be extracted from the TJ for use in Matthew when that gospel was being written, unless they were to have been heavily altered. There are at least ten more such instances, plus still others if one considers verses that Matthew does have parallels to.

SUCCESSIVE "AND". Another indication that the original had been an ancient text lacking punctuation is that in many places within the TJ's German text there is a series of three or more nouns, adjectives or verbs in a row, each separated by and ("und") rather than by a comma and a final and. That is, one finds frequent usage of the "A and B and C" structure and scarcely any usage of the conventional, present-day "A, B and C" structure. This is indicative of the original text having dated back to a time before the concept of the comma had been invented. This ancient structure then oftentimes carried over into the German translation of the TJ (1978 version), whether or not the text has a parallel within the Gospel of Matthew: e.g., see TJ 4:15, 6:40 (6:50 in the 1996 and later versions), 10:10, 10:26, 14:26, 18:35 (18:36 in '96 and later editions), 18:49, 18:58, 19:15, 22:10, 22:17, 24:31 (24:35 in '96 edition), 25:10, 28:45, 29:11 (29:4 in '96 and later editions), 30:14, 30:34, 31:36, 31:48, 32:40 (32:39 in '96 edition), 33:14, 33:33 (33:35 in '96 and later editions), 36:3, 36:5-6, 36:14, and 36:40-41 (36:37-38 in '96 and later editions). Of these, the 1996 English translation preserved the ancient structure only once (36:3). On the other hand, Eduard Meier in his various German writings dating as far back as 1975 does use the ordinary "A, B and C" structure; e.g., in the "Vorwort" (Foreword) of the TJ, 1978 version, pp. 9,10 (four instances), and in the 1996 version, p. xx, lines 3-4, 8, 15 and 22-23; and in the Epilog (lines 14-15), rather than using the ancient structure.

SUCCESSIVE "OR". A similar clue involving or (the German "oder") occurs at TJ 20:24 and 33:10, where three nouns or prepositional phrases are connected by two or's without use of intervening commas, as in "A or B or C," rather than the modern structure "A, B or C." In Meier's Foreword to the TJ (1978 version, p. 8; 1996 version, p. xvi) one may notice that he uses the modern structure.

Ancient history elucidated

A suggestive kind of verification occurs when some poorly known circumstance of history is mentioned and/or elucidated. I myself did not learn of the realism underlying the following TJ mentionings until after 20 years of investigating the TJ.


TJ 24:28    "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites who tithe mint, meramie, dill and caraway seeds but neglect the most important things in the law, namely justice, freedom of knowledge, and the truth of Creation...."

The Gospel of Matthew has a close parallel to the first part of this verse, in its Mt 23:23, but it omits "meramie." After much fruitless research within the botanical and herbal literature, I was notified by a Brazilian researcher of the TJ of his finding. The German word Meramie is the German transliteration of the Arabic name for the shrub called "Maramiyya." (See also under the discussion of Mt 23:23). Its Latin species name is "salvia fruticosa," known in English as the "three-lobed sage" and as "Greek sage." It is a common sage shrub in the eastern Mediterranean having a habitat of sunny dry, rocky hillsides. It has long been used as a medicine or medicinal tea. Its leaves, or the oil therefrom, is used internally for the treatment of digestive and respiratory complaints, menstrual and infertility problems, high blood pressure, depression and nervousness.

The "mara" root of the word means "bitter" in Hebrew, and the name of the plant in Hebrew is "Marva." "Maramiyya" is a bitter astringent, strongly suggesting that the meaning 'bitter" lies at the root of the word. It seems likely that when Isa Rashid translated the word he gave it the name it is still known by in the Palestinian region: "Maramiyya," or "Meramie" in German.

Thus we learn that meramie was a commercial herb that was subject to taxation along with mint, dill and cummin. I have speculated that the writer of Matthew omitted mention of this plant because it was known to be of important medicinal value. Use of it would likely have grated against his Scriptural, leave-it-to-God theology concerning one's health: Let God take care of you; don't take matters into your own hands or rely on therapeutic herbs.


TJ 28:54    "One of them (one of the three populations) is here in this country, which you (Israeli priesthood) have deprived of its rights and subjegated; another is in the east as far as the land of India, and the third is in the north from the land of the king with horns to the sea where icy mountains drift in the water."
Until recently (1/2/06) I had not learned of the likely abode of the "king with horns"
Coin showing the ram's horn
on the side of Alexander's head.
despite intermittent research over the years. Then I learned that there are many different coins depicting Alexander the Great (356-334 B.C.) with ram's horns. This wearing of horns on a ruler's head or helmet served the twofold purpose of being portrayed like some of the gods had been (e.g., the Greek god Pan, the Celtic god Cernunnos, the Egyptian god Amon-Ra) so as to take on the authority of a god, and to emphasize strength and virility. I learned further that his successors, the Seleucid kings, were then also characterized by horns, as indicated in coins picturing Antigonus (382-301 B.C.) and Seleucus (312-280 B.C.) wearing horned helmets, and Diodotus Tryphon (142-139 B.C.). Their kingdom was that of Medo-Persia including Syria, and their empire (soon reduced from that of Alexander) lasted until about 66 B.C. The custom of wearing a helmet embellished with an ibex horn on special occasions was evidently carried on by many Seleucid kings, because, as I finally learned, in the book of Daniel (Dn 7:7-8,24) the referral is to ten horns, which Josephus easily interpreted as meaning successive kings who reigned over the Medes and Persians (Antiquities Book X, Chapter XI, paragraph 7). Daniel's reference to the "great horn" between the eyes of the he-goat (Dn 8:5) is taken to be Alexander the Great; his reference to the "little horn" is often taken to refer to Antiochus IV, king of Syria, 175-163 B.C. The land of the horned kings (plural) could therefore be interpreted to be the land of the Medes and Persians during the time of Josephus in mid-to-late 1st century A.D. Since the land of these kings had also been Alexander's land, it could also be called the land of the horned king (singular). The German TJ verse words it as "the land of the horned king."

So this TJ verse seems to refer to the land to the north of Israel starting from Syria and extending northwest over Europe all the way to the North Atlantic, where icebergs emanating from Greenland and Svalbard drift.


TJ 35:1    It came to pass that Jmmanuel, his mother Mary, and his brother Thomas traveled on into the cities at the sea in the north. Since olden times, warrior women inhabited the area, but their descendants were now peaceloving.

The sea that is mentioned apparently refers to the Black Sea, as the previous last placement of Jmmanuel and his traveling party was in Damascus (TJ 33:34). According to Diodorus Siculus, a Sicilian-Greek historian in his Book #17 on Alexander the Great, Alexander had an encounter with a queen of the Amazons name Thalestris and the 300 Amazons traveling with her; she hoped to have Alexander sire a son with her.

And according to the Russian historian, Viktor Yanovych of Kiev:

The Ancient Greek historian [Herodotus] claims that the Sauromatians [or Sarmatians] were produced by a cross of the Scythians and Amazons. The latter are generally known to have been a female fighting community that lived without men. Many believe that it is just a romantic myth, yet it is an historical fact that the Amazons did exist. There are different sources pointing to their deeds, names, and Amazon settlements dating back into the mist of centuries. Henning opines that the Ancient Greek legend about the Amazons dates from before Homer. Greek sources have it that the Amazons first lived in the Transcaucasus and then appeared by the Sea of Azov, not far from the Scythians. A number of cities in Asia Minor (e.g., Ephesus, Smyrna, Mytilene, Sinope, etc.) were believed to have been founded by Amazons.
         The warlike women more often than not pitched camp on the river Thermodontus, on the south coast of the Pontus Euxinus, as the ancients called the Black Sea. According to Aeschylus, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and Pausanias, their main city was Thermoskyra, not far from Amysa and Amasia.

The latter community is located in the northern part of central Turkey, just south of the Black Sea. From that very region, apparently, Jmmanuel and his companions then traveled inland and through mountains until reaching Ephesus. Although experts on the topic are aware of the woman-warrior aspect of the Sarmatians, it is not likely that a New Age literary hoaxer would be aware of it, or would know that their influence had extended to the south side of the Black Sea.

The dependence of Matthew upon the TJ

Even a brief comparison of the TJ against the Gospel of Matthew discloses that one depends upon the other. The correspondence in order of events and sometimes in wording is too close to permit any other possibility. In comparing them, then, we continually raise the question: Is it more plausible that the writer of Matthew based his text upon the ancient TJ rolls, or that a 20th-century literary hoaxer based the TJ upon Matthew?

In these comparisons, the Matthean verse(s) are listed first under "Mt," followed by the parallel or cognate Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) verse(s) when the parallels exist. To access those Matthean verses that have received scholarly criticism or question, just click within the Table below. Explanations follow the Table.

Mt 1: 1 , 3,5,6 , 16-17 , 18-19, 20**, 21**, 22*, 23, 24*, 25
2: 1-2, 4-6, 7, 9*, 10, 11, 13-14, 15*, 16-18, 19-20**, 22*, 23
3: 1, 3, 5-6, 7*, 8-10, 11*, 16, 17*
4: 1-11**, 12-13*, 14-16, 17, 19*, 23
5: 3**, 4*, 5*, 6, 7, 8*, 9*, 10, 12, 17-18*, 19-20*, 21-22a*, 22b, 23-24, 25-26**,
28, 30*, 34-35, 39*, 40, 41, 42, 44-45*, 46-47, 48*
6: 1, 2, 3-4, 5b, 6, 7-8, 9-13*, 14-15, 16b, 19, 20-21, 24b-25*, 27, 30-32, 33*, 34*
7: 1*, 6*, 7-8*, 11, 15, 19, 21-22, 23, 28-29**
8: 4, 10, 11-12, 20, 23,24-25,26,27*
9: 2-3*, 5-6**, 8, 10-11, 13, 14-15*, 16, 27-33*, 35, 37-38*
10: 2, 5-6, 7*, 9-10*, 15*, 18, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29-31, 32-33, 34**, 35-37, 38, 39, 40-42
11: 2-3*, 5*, 11, 12, 14*, 19, 20-24, 25-26, 27, 28-29, 30*
12: 6-8, 9, 11-12*, 14**, 15-17*, 18-21, 22-26, 27-28, 29,
30, 31-32, 33-37, 38-40, 41-42, 43-45, 46-47, 48-50
13: 1, 3-11*, 12, 13-14*, 19-23, 24-30*, 31-32, 36-43, 44, 47-48**, 49-50, 54
14: 1-4a**, 9*, 13*, 14, 17**, 19**, 21, 23, 29-31*, 33
15: 1-4, 11,18, 12**, 13-17, 19-20a, 21, 22-28, 29-31, 32-39
16: 1, 4, 4b-5*, 10, 12*, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20*, 21-22*, 24, 25*, 26**, 27, 28*
17: 1-9, 10-13, 14, 17-18, 21, 22-23, 24-27
18: 1, 3-4*, 5*, 6*, 8*, 9-10*, 11, 12, 13-14, 16-17*, 18, 19, 20, 21-22, 23-35
19: 3-5, 6, 7-9a, 12, 13-15, 16-17, 18-20, 21-22, 24,25-26, 28, 29, 30**
20: 1-16, 17-19, 20-28
21: 2-3*, 4-5, 7, 9, 11*, 12-13, 15, 16*, 18-23, 28-32, 42*, 43, 44**
22: 1-14, 15-16, 30*, 31-33*, 34-35, 36-40**, 42, 43-46
23: 1-2, 3*, 7-8,9,10**, 11-12*, 13**, 14*, 17-19, 20-22, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34-36, 37, 38-39
24: 3-4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15-16, 20, 27, 28*, 30*, 31, 33*, 34, 35*, 37-41, 42-44, 45-50, 51
25: 1-13, 14-30, 31-34, 35-40,41,42-43, 44-45, 46
26: 1-2**, 3-4, 5, 6-13**, 14-16**, 17-18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26*, 27-28, 29, 30, 31-33**, 35, 36-46**,
47, 49-50, 51-52*, 53*, 54, 55-56**, 57, 58, 59, 61-62*, 63, 64*, 65, 67-68**, 69-70, 74
27: 1-12**, 13-14*, 15*, 17,18,20,22, 25, 26*, 27, 29, 32, 33*, 35, 37, 39-40,
41-42*, 43-44, 45, 46-47, 48-49, 50, 51, 52-53, 54, 55-56, 57, 59*-61, 62-66
28: 1, 2-3, 4*, 6, 7**, 8, 9-10, 11-15, 16, 17, 18-19,20**


In the brief discussions following the verse presentations, the criticisms or questions raised by various scholars regarding the Matthean verse(s) are first aired. Then follows a brief explanation of why any parallel TJ verses do not suffer from the scholar's criticism or question. The scholar whose criticisms are presented most frequently here is the late Francis Beare, using his commentary The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981). He is referenced by name and page number (e.g., Beare, p. xxx). His text is most heavily utilized here because it post-dates the TJ, is comprehensive, and is critical. However, I have tried not to present "invalid" criticisms based only upon assumptions that with hindsight appear to be false, even when they support the TJ's text over the Matthean text. The most common "invalid" assumptions are:

    (a) The supposition that a Matthean verse is non-genuine merely because it or a portion of it is not found in Mark;
    (b) The supposition that a Matthean verse is non-genuine merely because it or a portion of it is found in Luke but not in Mark (i.e., the scholar assumed it had been contained in the hypothetical document called "Q" and therefore was not original with the writer of Matthew);
    (c) The supposition that a Matthean verse or words within it are non-genuine merely because of an argument that overlooks the likelihood that Matthew was written first in the Hebraic tongue, as attested by the external evidence, with its translation into Greek coming only after Mark and/or Luke were written;
    (d) The supposition that no person, no matter how unique and how well attested to have been a short-range prophet, could validly prophesy events in his distant future as well; this would include certain OT prophets in addition to Jesus/Jmmanuel;
    (e) The supposition that no such thing as the human spirit, its evolution and power, along with the spiritual world, could exist;
    (f) The supposition that angels must not be equated to ETs nor their means of transport to UFOs.

These highly questionable suppositions are listed here because it would not make good sense to judge a source text (e.g., the TJ) that uncovers multitudinous falsehoods within a derived text (Matthew) by standards of the derived text (Matthew or other Gospels). As once noted by Dr. Jean Houston,

We won't solve problems using the mindset of those who caused the problems.

This mindset is one of denying or failing to recognize truth, due to having bought into false assumptions. However, it is worth mentioning that many of the Matthean redactions uncovered by the TJ involve considerations other than the non-validity of the above suppositions.

The verses/passages marked by an asterisk indicate ones that point quite strongly to Matthew having been dependent upon the TJ and/or ones that seem quite unlikely a literary hoaxer could have been creative, clever and knowledgeable enough to have invented. There are 80 of these, involving arguments that are difficult to reverse. The 32 additional passages marked by a double asterisk point even more strongly towards Matthean use of the TJ. The remaining passages are also consistent with the TJ being genuine, though some might equally be argued the other way around.

To each of the verse/passage comparisons deemed essentially independent in the table above a probability has been assigned that it could be a hoax, while avoiding the invalid suppositions listed above. Each probability, labeled PHoax, is a fractional value lying between 0 and 1; a value of 0.5 represents complete uncertainty whether the TJ is a hoax or not, judging from the particular verse comparison, a larger value represents an estimated probability from that verse/pericope comparison alone that it is a hoax, and a smaller value represents the estimated probability that it is not a hoax. Generally I have estimated probability values to the closest 0.05, and have combined them for each Mt-TJ chapter's set of verse comparisons according to the rules for accumulating conditionally independent probabilities. Some Matthean verses do not receive any criticism or question here; they parallel TJ verses sufficiently closely that no claims of redaction could be made. If these had been included in the probability analysis, they would receive hoax-probability estimates around 0.5, which would not affect the outcome.

The resulting accumulated probabilities for hoax are listed in the table below.

13.3 x 10-5 87.7 x 10-2 152.2 x 10-2 225.3 x 10-3
22.0 x 10-4 92.9 x 10-5 163.0 x 10-7 231.0 x 10-6
32.2 x 10-3 101.0 x 10-4 173.0 x 10-1 241.0 x 10-5
48.6 x 10-4 112.1 x 10-4 181.0 x 10-4 253.5 x 10-1
50.6 x 10-8 122.9 x 10-4 191.4 x 10-2 261.8 x 10-13
66.3 x 10-5 134.4 x 10-5 203.5 x 10-1 278.0 x 10-8
79.4 x 10-4 144.1 x 10-5 211.4 x 10-4 287.0 x 10-5

What is the resultant probability, then, based on the hypothesis that either the TJ is a hoax constructed from Matthew or that Matthew was constructed out of the TJ, that the entire TJ could be a hoax? Upon accumulating the above probabilities for the 28 Matthean chapters, one finds the overall chance that the TJ is a hoax to be about 10-111. This is no misprint. These are odds of about 1 in 10111, a number that far exceeds the number of atoms in the whole Earth. These infinitesimally small odds for a hoax explain why this investigator has not often used language in this website that sounds hesitant or uncertain whether the TJ is genuine or not.

However, this value does not take into account the "prior probability," which emerges from the derivation of the statistical formula for accumulating the estimated probabilities. The prior probability is meant to account for any unspecified evidence not explicitly taken into account in one's analysis. In this instance, it might be an unsupported belief that Eduard Meier is not honest and fabricated the story of the TJ's discovery and provenance, or that the TJ's translator (Isa Rashid) never existed, or that it seems very improbable that any relevant document like the TJ would be discovered at this late date, or that it is improbable that there could be such a thing as a person (Jmmanuel) who is so highly evolved spiritually that he could prophesy validly both short range and long range, etc. The Bayesian-statistics derivation indicates that if one can identify and assign estimated probabilities of certainty to such "prior" considerations, they are to be treated in the analysis just as are the interpretations of the more explicit (textual) evidence. Although these priors have not been included here, the present website gives evidence that if they were to be included, the probability for hoax would be driven still smaller, by taking into account that the TJ's co-discoverer and custodian/editor of the translations is still alive to vouch for the genuineness of the discovery, that many persons have attested to the truth of his UFO experiences, as does the Meier-case photo evidence. And it would decrease still further if the testimony of 2nd-century bishop Papias were to be taken into account, and interpreted as indicating that the writer of Matthew formed his gospel out of a Hebraic document that Papias referred to as the Logia, which did not survive. And even further decreased if the Jesus-in-India evidence were taken into account, and the massive amount of evidence supporting the reality of reincarnation. The method of accumulating probabilities used herein needs to have all the evidence taken into consideration in order that there be no initial bias favoring either hoax or genuineness (the "prior probability" for hoax is then 0.5 and the simplest expression of the accumulation formula then becomes valid). Although I find that the above vanishingly small odds for hoax would then become even smaller when these other considerations are taken into account, I have not attempted to quantify them, and the prior probability has simply been set to 0.5.

The reader is reminded, however, that many scholars exist who insist that Matthew is dependent upon Mark, who must then insist that a hypothetical document "Q" once existed, that no such thing as the spirit world exists (they haven't studied the past-life, NDE and OBE data), and that UFOs aren't real and associated with aliens or extraterrestrials (they haven't studied the UFO phenomenon). They may be theologically committed and may not mind ignoring the logic of the arguments presented in the Mt-TJ verse comparisons. Such scholars can simply state, in an authoritative tone of voice, "The TJ looks like a hoax to me," and add 0.3 to 0.4 to each individual probability I have assessed. Then they will end up with an overall probability favoring the TJ being a hoax in their minds.

Is there precedent for an early Christian writer to have closely followed an earlier writing but altering it so as to make it more appealing to the church? The answer is affirmative, with the case in mind being the long recension of the epistles of Ignatius, as compared with the shorter version that scholars prefer as being much more genuine. (See the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, eds., vol. I; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993, pp. 45-104, where both the long and short version are printed alongside.) The anonymous writer of the long recension inserted many quotations from the Gospels, among other changes, in order to upgrade its christology. A substantial number of the Matthean alterations to the TJ are of this same type, wherein its anonymous writer utilized mainly the Old Testament (or Hebrew scriptures) for his quotations. The editors (T. E. Page and W.H.D. Rouse) of The Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, wrote that the long recension of Ignatius's epistles is "greatly corrupted by obvious interpolations." The TJ was just as obviously, but even more greatly, corrupted by the writer of Matthew. The similarity here between the two cases extends to the anonymity of the falsifying writers (the writer of the long recension and the writer of Matthew) and the failure of originals of the documents in question to have survived.

As suggested above and indicated much further upon examination of the Mt-TJ verse comparisons, even "mainstream" scholars have had large numbers of criticisms to make of Matthew and the other Gospels. The group of scholars who are best known for their deductions of genuine versus non-genuine Gospel verses is the Jesus Seminar. This group, once larger than 100 scholars, devoted one of their major efforts towards discussing and voting upon the genuineness of Matthew's teaching/discourse verses (see "Voting Records" in Forum 5, No. 1, March 1990). They judged 86% of these 719 Matthean verses to be non-genuine or probably non-genuine. Although this percentage is not so far from what the TJ indicates, this Seminar had few valid clues as to which particular verses were genuine and which not, and their batting average in this respect was dismal. They mainly assumed that "Jesus" genuinely spoke only weird or illogical, impractical utterances, such as "Turn the other cheek," "Love your enemies," and the parable of paying the workers in the vineyard the same wage whether they had worked one hour or all day. However, these, the TJ indicates, had been among the many inventions of the writer of Matthew. On the other hand, the TJ lets us know that some of the verses that the Jesus Seminar found to be non-genuine, such as the Golden Rule, had actually been spoken by Jmmanuel (though he did not claim credit for that particular precept). Furthermore, the Jesus Seminar could not realize that the Gospel of Matthew is even more corrupt than they suspected, in that its writer had the truth available to him in writing, and purposely edited out practically all the TJ's spiritual teachings because the true teachings conflicted with his own beliefs and that of the early church.

Differences between the TJ's 1978, 1992 and later editions

The 1992 German version of the Talmud Jmmanuel (TJ) edited by Eduard Meier differs very considerably in detail, though not in overall substance, from his 1978 German version. For scholarly, investigative reasons, the 1978 TJ may be preferable to the 1992 and later editions. Thus these differences are discussed here.

Meier made the alterations at the prompting of one of his Pleiadian ET contactors named Ptaah, who, according to what Meier has learned, presently holds a position of authority in overseeing Earth that corresponds to the position that the ET with the title El held 2000 years ago. He informed Meier during contacts occurring in 1989-1991 that there were many minor errors and some omissions in the 1978 version. Ptaah went on to inform Meier of the alterations needed, which were said to stem from knowledge stored within the Akashic Records. The errors and omissions of the 1978 version were incurred partly when the ex-priest, Isa Rashid, made the translations from old Aramaic into crude German starting in 1963, but mostly, according to Meier, when Meier's typist, Frau Krauer, in 1977-78 paid insufficient attention to the details of her task of readying the rough manuscript for publication, and relied too heavily upon the Gospel of Matthew from the German Bible when typing in TJ verses having close parallels to Matthean verses. In addition, Meier could not take the time then to carefully read over the final, typed manuscript himself, due to being in the midst of having rather frequent ET contacts, transcribing their content, having photo sessions of the associated UFOs subject to the ETs' rules, and answering the many questions from his group of supporters, called F.I.G.U., and from hundreds of visitors to Schmidrüti, Switzerland. As well, he was trying to raise a family of three children during this time. Worse, he never received the rough manuscript back from Frau Krauer, who lived in a different village, despite having requested it more than once. Hence he could not proofread the final typed manuscript against the rough one.

In addition, however, at Ptaah's urging Meier also made numerous minor alterations in the German text and/or the verse numberings in order to satisfy the requirements of the code he was supposed to incorporate in all his writings. Only Meier and his contactors know what this code is all about. As already mentioned, whatever it was, it did not significantly alter the meaning or substance of the text.

First, concerning the verse numbers, these were altered in many of the 1992 TJ's 36 chapters when Meier usually decided that each sentence (in German), no matter how long or short, should receive a separate verse number. Involved in this editing, of course, were numerous decisions by Meier on when a sentence should be broken into two or more, with commas or semicolons replaced by periods, and when to progress in the opposite direction. Such decisions in this case were naturally at the discretion of the editor to make, since the text of the original Aramaic rolls of course had contained no punctuation. Of the 1,721 verses in the 1978 TJ, 44% received altered numbering as a result, with the 1992 TJ ending up with 1,783 verses. Aside from the effect of renumbering and redefining verses, only 42% of the 1992 TJ's verses remain identical in text to those of the 1978 version.

In producing the 1992 version, Meier made minor grammatical editorial adjustments in 23% of the TJ's verses, often multiply within verses. These involved items such as: revisions of word endings for corrections in number, case or gender; interchanging the order of two or more words; choosing a more appropriate preposition, conjunction or pronoun; filling in or omitting an implied verb; merging two adjacent words into a compound word or splitting a compound word into two; and correcting the prefix or tense of a verb.

Alteration or correction of the spelling of a name, or introduction of a word of unknown spelling (and meaning), occurred in some 2% of the verses. An example of an unknown word of this type is "allso." Possibly this is part of the "code" requirement Meier abided by. Most of the alterations in the spelling of names occurred within the genealogy, where an "i" was often replaced by a "j," with no change in pronunciation, just as the "I" in Immanuel was replaced with a "J." The use of the "J" symbol is said by Meier to have been present in the TJ rolls themselves, as translated into German by Rashid, and is explained by Meier within an introductory page of the TJ from information he received from his ET contactors.

The substitution of one significant word or phrase for another in order to clarify its meaning occurred in 10% of the verses. Examples are: "Bewusstein" (consciousness, or awareness or sensibility) replacing "Geist" (spirit or mind), and "vertrauen" (to trust) replacing "glauben" (to believe).

The insertion of additional words and phrases of substance, presumably either to correct for their previous omission or to better convey the supposed meaning of the Aramaic text, occurred in some 18% of the verses. These amplified upon the theme already under discussion. (When three or more words of substance replaced one, I classified them as an insertion rather than a substitution.) In only 8 verses of the 1,783 was a word of any substance from the 1978 text omitted without replacement in the 1992 text.

In 3% of the verses a whole clause was inserted, and/or a new verse itself. Again, these amplified the existing topics under discussion.

When this editorial work by Meier is added to the amount he must have performed prior to 1978 in bringing the first version of the TJ into print, it is possible that Meier expended as much effort on the project as had Isa Rashid in first translating the Aramaic into crude German. However, it may be difficult to believe that he expended four times Rashid's effort, as stated in his Foreword to the 1992 TJ.

Overall, the impact and meaning of the TJ remained unchanged between 1978 and 1992, though certain details were altered and a few minor contradictions thereby eliminated. In forming an opinion of how genuine the TJ is, it is important to keep in mind that if one starts with a document that is genuine and consistent, the effect of errors in translation and editing is to introduce inconsistencies. Correcting the errors then eliminates these inconsistencies or contradictions.

The 2007 German TJ contains the change from "Geist" (spirit or mind) to "Bewusstsein" (consciousness or awareness), and their adjectival derivatives, in a preponderance of occurrences, though treated as equivalent in certain places.

The alongside 2007 English version has in addition undergone:

Any biblical scholar who should become interested in the TJ might wish to start with the 1978 version of the TJ, since it purports to be historical except for its errors and omissions, while the 1992 and later versions contain some input that is akin to channeling, coming largely from an ET. One cannot be certain that everything Meier was told by his ETs was truth rather than disinformation (though Meier presumably is certain), since different contactees are told different things, sometimes contradictory, by their ET contactors. There is good reason to believe that ETs purposely supply us with disinformation along with truth, so that we must continue to rely upon our own discernment as to what is truth and what is not, and not come to rely upon them for enlightenment. Hence one may not be certain that all the changes in the TJ's 1992 version go in the direction of truth, which might lie somewhere in between the 1978 version and the 1992 and later versions of the TJ through 2007.

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 northern 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 dispel any thought that Matthew was dependent upon it. The earlier editions of the TJ have now become extra valuable.

Return to:Contents