Mt 9:2-3 2And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." 3And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming."
TJ 9:2-3 2And behold, they brought to him a gouty person, lying on a bed. When Jmmanuel saw their faith, he spoke to the paralytic, "Be comforted, because your faith in the power of my consciousness and your confidence in my teachings of wisdom, which are the teachings of nature and of Creation, has helped you." 3And behold, some of the scribes began stirring up talk among the people: "This man slanders God and our holy teachings."
TJ 9:2-3 2Und siehe, da brachten sie zu ihm einen Gichtbrüchigen, der lag auf einem Bette, und da nun Jmmanuel ihr Vertrauen sah, sprach er zu dem Gichtbrüchigen: «Sei getrost, denn dein Vertrauen an die Kraft meines Bewusstseins und dein Vertrauen an meine Weisheitslehre, die die Lehre der Natur und der Schopfung ist, hat dir geholfen.» 3Und siehe, etliche unter den Schriftgelehrten schürten im Volke die Rede: «Dieser Mann lästert Gott und unsere heiligen Lehren.»
THE PROBLEMS. Jesus' words to the paralytic would have no meaning for him. He and his bearers were trusting that Jesus could heal him, and when Jesus instead spoke of his sins being forgiven, this would not have been perceived to have been connected to healing. No explanation was given that would relate the man's sins to his illness. Besides, having been a paralytic, he was less likely to have committed sins than the others around him. Further, there is no mention of what his sins were.
The words "your sins are forgiven" by themselves, without any proof of their truth, would not begin to constitute blasphemy. Anyone can utter words like that, and if nothing happens, onlookers could care less. As it turns out, there was an outcome—the paralytic was miraculously healed—but that outcome did not become manifested until slightly later (in verse 9:7), when the man got up and went home. The writer of Matthew either erroneously inserted the blasphemy accusation too early in his story, or failed to invent blasphemous dialogue.
But we may credit Davies & Allison for mentioning this as a Matthean problem or discrepancy. They remarked that "Matthew does not explain why the outraged scribes believe Jesus has blasphemed." If it is supposed to have been because Jesus should have attributed the healing to God, his failure to do so would not constitute blasphemy, which requires an active utterance against God. And, as already mentioned, the scribes would not yet even have known that the man was healed.
SOLUTION. We see that the problems occurred because the redactor's alterations were not very carefully thought out. In the TJ, however, Jmmanuel mentioned that the power of his spirit or consciousness and the paralytic's trust in him (not in the power of God), had helped the paralytic, and this could then be considered blasphemy. And his saying that his wisdom on this stemmed from nature and Creation (and not from God or the LORD), would add to the scribes' perception of blasphemy. Even if they had considered "Creation" as equivalent to "Creator," the bringing in of "nature" here would downgrade the majesty of God. See under Mt 5:7 for discussion of the TJ's utilization of "nature."
The writer of Matthew likely derived his theology of connecting (a) healing of illness to (b) forgiveness of sins from Ps 103:3. However, in that psalm (a) and (b) are simply listed as separate blessings among several others that the LORD could bestow; they are not connected except by proximity within a list. Yet such a connection between them formed an important part of the theology of the writer of Matthew.
This constitutes one of many occasions of "fatigue" on the part of the writer of Matthew. He replaced an unacceptable sentence from the TJ with one of his own characteristic themes in Mt 9:2, regarding forgiveness of sins. Then in Mt 9:3 he resumed following the TJ text about the talk of Jmmanuel/Jesus having blasphemed. In so doing, he overlooked the fact that his substitute verse did not measure up to a charge of blasphemy.
It is interesting to note that the writer of Matthew added the phrase "my son." The likely motivation was to enhance Jesus' image as a compassionate father figure, just as the God of Israel was regarded to be towards his own people.
It is scarcely believable that a potential literary hoaxer would have noticed the premature timing of the blasphemy accusation, which is not discussed in the known literature. It is further not too likely that he would realize that blasphemy had not actually taken place in Matthew, and was a situation that he could correct in a natural manner consistent with TJ philosophy. PHoax ≈ 0.2.
TJ 9:5-6 5"Yet, what is easier, to say, 'Your faith has helped you,' or, 'Stand up and walk?' 6So that you may know that I am a person like you and yet know how to use the power of my consciousness through my knowledge, I command the paralytic, 'Get up, pick up your bed and go home.'"
TJ 9:5-6 5«Doch was ist leichter zu sagen: Dein Vertrauen hat dir geholfen, oder zu sagen: Stehe auf und wandle? 6Auf dass ihr aber wisset, dass ich ein Mensch bin wie ihr seid, dass ich aber die Kraft meines Bewusstseins durch mein Wissen zu nutzen weiss, so befehle ich dem Gichtbrüchigen: ‹Stehe auf, hebe dein Bett und gehe heim!›»
THE PROBLEMS. Concerning 9:6, Beare (p. 222) concluded beyond doubt that the Matthean verse is an editorial addition having the purpose of establishing the precedent for the church to exercise the power of absolution (forgiving sins).
In view of this objection, and that already expressed in discussion of Mt 9:2, the sentence: "Your sins are forgiven" can be nothing other than a part of the compiler's redactive theme.
Also, where is there any astonishment or puzzlement over the mention or meaning of Son of man? Surely the crowd would have exhibited much wonder over that unless the phrase is just an editorial falsification. Instead, the crowds exhibit fear (two verses later) as if they had understood what the "Son of man" referred to, while the best of today's scholars cannot even agree on its meaning.
SOLUTION. The TJ cognates, in dealing with the power of Jmmanuel's spirit or consciousness, are seen to have nothing to do with forgiving sins, and indicate that Beare was correct. Here Jmmanuel indicated that it was the power of his own consciousness plus the man's own trust in the power of his consciousness that had effected the cure. He also tells the scribes he is no god, in performing this mighty act, but a man like them.
Presumably Jmmanuel's first question was the more difficult one for a healer to have posed, because the healer must previously have demonstrated his abilities many times over in order for the ailing person to have learned that he could place complete trust in the healer.
It is of particular interest that the Matthean verse reads "Son of man" just where the TJ has "I am a person like you." This appears to be the spot where the compiler, in his editing and formation of Matthew, first decided to utilize the "Son of man" phrase, as he certainly could not let stand the TJ's heretical words, "I am a person like you." However, he decided to use it in a somewhat subtle or enigmatic manner in which Jesus does not come right out and admit he is the Son of man. The compiler would then be "correcting" the TJ account involving the power of his spirit while reinforcing the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, since the mystical title "son of man" occurs repeatedly in the Book of Enoch ( 1 Enoch or the Ethopian Enoch), where the Son of man was a figure who was the "chosen one" of the "Lord of Spirits." He would also have known about this same Son of man from Dn 7:13, where it applies to a person of messianic qualities who arrived with "the clouds of heaven" and who was given dominion, glory and kingdom. This solution to the "Son of man" problem is supported by the fact that only once before this verse (at Mt 8:20) did the compiler utilize the phrase, whereas he utilized it 30 times from this point onwards. This is despite the fact that "I" as spoken by Jesus in Matthew occurs 24 times before that point without the phrase having been substituted for it.
The "Son of man" phrase moreover appears to be anachronistic. We have no evidence that it was ever applied to Jesus until the Gospel of Matthew came out. In all of Paul's epistles, he never once applied the phrase to Jesus. And in the epistles of Ignatius half a century later the phrase is never used as a title for Jesus. (We find elsewhere that Matthew was not written until some time after Ignatius's death.)
This solution also explains the awkward wording of Matthew wherein the narrator has to break into Jesus' speech to explain "he then said to the paralytic." Its writer did not wish Jesus to come right out and admit he was the Son of man, which would have been the result if he had forced Jesus to speak of himself as the Son of man once again in the same sentence, or if he had continued in the TJ's vein and used "I" at this point. Therefore he broke in as the narrator so that he could express it as "he said."
We have much evidence here that Matthew is not genuine. We also see that if a literary hoaxer had been involved, the chances are exceedingly slim that he could have foreseen these Matthean problems, fix them up without introducing new problems, and in so doing use wording that explains what prompted the writer of Matthew to start using the "Son of man" expression. Instead, we observe here precisely why and how the writer of Matthew altered the TJ to produce verses acceptable to him. PHoax ≈ 0.1.
TJ 9:8 8When the people saw this, they became fearful and praised the new wondrous teachings of Jmmanuel, which could give such power to human beings.
TJ 9:8 8Da das Volk das sah, fürchtete es sich und pries die neue wunderbare Lehre Jmmanuels, die solche Macht den Menschen zu geben vermochte.
THE PROBLEMS. The Matthean verse refers back to the authority for forgiving sins of Mt 9:6. Its primary illogic lies in the fact that the preceding narrative, of Jesus healing the man and telling him his sins were forgiven, in no way demonstrated that God had given men this same power or authority. The way the matter stands at the end of this pericope, God had given this authority to heal and forgive sins just to the son of man, who one can only assume was Jesus. What other man or person could have healed the paralytic like that? The usual interpretation, however, as augmented by other passages in the New Testament, is that these verses give certain priests and ministers this authority of absolution.
A minor problem is that there had been no previous mention of "crowds," only the mention that "they" had brought the paralytic to Jesus. This indefinite "they" were presumably just the people and their friends who were transporting the paralytic. Although they could well have attracted more people by the time Jesus spoke, it is difficult to understand how they could so quickly have turned into crowds (plural). Thus it very much appears that the writer of Matthew was enhancing the story relative to what he found in his source.
The verse is an example of the redactor having made just enough changes to cause the resultant story to be illogical, not just ambiguous. Who is to say which men (or women) have the authority to forgive sins? The illogic would spread if we were to ponder the meaning of having one's sins forgiven: is the sinner more likely or less likely to commit the same sin again after having been told his sins are forgiven? Why didn't Jesus ever explain the significance, if any, of having one's sins forgiven? The fact that such questions have been raised before, over the centuries, makes them no less significant.
SOLUTION. With the TJ cognate, the interpretation to be made is that Jmmanuel taught that the same power to heal that he possessed lies within us also (TJ 9:6), if we have the faith and knowledge to unlock this power. The problem that Beare noticed actually constitutes an instance of Matthean "fatigue." The writer of Matthew in Mt 9:6 had altered the TJ's "I am a man like you" into third-person talk by the Son of man. Then in Mt 9:8b he reverted to the TJ text (9:8) that said the authority to heal had been given to humans. To follow through and avoid the problem, he should have altered the latter to say the authority had been given to Jesus, if he hadn't been intent on granting it to the church also.
The TJ does not speak of crowds, only of "the people," which refers to whatever number of people happened to have been around to witness the event at the time. However, in Mark's parallel, it is mentioned that many had already been assembled with Jesus at the time the event started. This and additional details in Mark in this pericope could well represent reality, extracted from the document available to the writer of Mark but not available to the writer of Matthew. Davies & Allison, following the mainstream consensus, inferred that the writer of Matthew had abbreviated the Markan account and inadvertently omitted the mention of "crowds" or "the many" early in the story. However, since the document that Peter had carried to Rome, much later utilized by the writer of Mark, had been written very shortly after the events had occurred, detail was richer within this document than in the TJ source, which had been written years later. Thus the TJ must have been more vague in general than "Peter's memoirs," as this document has been called, but the latter only encompassed the contents of Mt 8-11, roughly speaking.
Since the TJ's verse is consistent with the surrounding TJ context and does not suffer from the Matthean problems, it is more likely here that the Matthean verse derives from the TJ rather than vice versa. PHoax ≈ 0.3.
TJ 9:10-11 10And it came to pass as he was eating at home, behold, many tax collectors, ignorant people and truth seekers came and ate at the table with Jmmanuel and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they spoke to his disciples, "Why is your master eating with the tax collectors and the ignorant?"
TJ 9:10-11 10Und es begab sich, als er zu Tische sass zu Hause, siehe, da kamen viele Zöllner und Unwissende und Wahrheitssucher und sassen zu Tische mit Jmmanuel und seinen Jüngern. 11Da das die Pharisäer sahen, sprachen sie zu seinen Jüngern: «Warum isst euer Meister mit den Zöllnern und den Unwissenden?»
THE PROBLEM. In Mt 9:10 how would it actually be known who were sinners and who were not? They were all sinners to varying degrees, including Pharisees who were on the scene. This uncertainty arises sufficiently often in the Gospels that the word "sinner" has frequently come to be interpreted to mean the poor—the outcasts. Some New Testament scholars read the word "sinners" and think "the poor." Hence they do not make the above criticism, since the poor were identifiable by their clothing and position in life. However, there was no reason for the writer of Matthew himself to have thought in this manner, and Davies & Allison agree. If so, "sinners" in both Mt 9:10 and 11 must be a redaction.
SOLUTION. This problem does not arise with the TJ verse. The uneducated or ignorant people and truth seekers could be identified as those eager to ask Jmmanuel questions. PHoax ≈ 0.35.
It may be mentioned that the German TJ text also utilizes the wording "as he sat at table," but this was altered to "as he was eating" in the English translation. It may also be noted that "at home" ("zu Hause" in the German) is used rather than "in the house" ("im Hause"). This probably means that Jmmanuel was then at the home he had been living in during his time in Capernaum, and not at Nazareth. As in Matthew, the TJ (4:52) has him leaving Nazareth and living in Capernaum, after the imprisonment of John the Baptist.
TJ 9:13 13"Go therefore, and recognize the falseness of your wrong teachings, so you do not mislead those people who thirst for the truth."
TJ 9:13 13«Gehet aber hin und erkennet die Falschheit eurer irrigen Lehren, so ihr damit nicht Menschen irreleitet, die nach der Wahrheit dürsten.»
THE PROBLEMS. Beare (p. 272) noted that the words "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," directed to some Pharisees, were brought in from Hosea and are not relevant here. The Hosea verse is:
Hos 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice...
In some older Bibles, "mercy" is the word used in place of "steadfast love" in the Hosea verse, showing even better the source of the Matthean verse. We may also note that the Hosea citation is unattributed to its source, and this, along with its irrelevance to the context of the previous verses, casts grave doubts upon its genuineness.
The last part of the Matthean verse lacks meaning because it contradicts some of what has come earlier. For example, in Mt 5:48 Jesus admonishes his followers to be perfect, as God is perfect. This is most easily interpreted as meaning that he is calling the righteous, not sinners. And in Mt 5:20 he told his disciples that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, if they were to enter the kingdom of heaven. Although some theologians may attempt to circumvent this by saying that the "righteousness" involved here is that of orthodox Jewish teaching of the law, or of self-proclaimed righteousness, this nevertheless is the very same "righteousness" used in Mt 5:20. And of course, the "sinners" theme is highly suspect here if only because its occurrences in the earlier portions of this pericope have been found to be due to the compiler's redactions.
SOLUTION. The TJ verse is a distant cognate, but in both verses it is Pharisees who are being addressed. Again, the ideas that Pharisees were spreading false teachings, and that people should thirst for truth elsewhere than from temple or church authorities, would have seemed distasteful or heretical to any early church scribe of Jewish or Pharisaic background. There would have been ample motivation for the compiler to edit this. In so doing, his emphasis upon mercy, sin and sinners crept in, producing plagiarism and inconsistency.
Could a literary hoaxer have reconstructed the Matthean verse to have produced this TJ verse free from the Matthean problems, and have it be so significant and meaningful? Not likely. PHoax ≈ 0.35.
TJ 9:14-17 14Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Master, why do we and the Pharisees fast while you and your disciples do not?" 15Jmmanuel said to them, "How can the ignorant fast and suffer while they are being taught knowledge? 16And how can the teacher fast when he must teach knowledge to the ignorant? 17Truly, I say to you, your teachings are false if you fast according to a religious dogma; fasting serves only the health of the body and the growth of the consciousness."
TJ 9:14-17 14Da kamen die Jünger des Johannes zu ihm und sprachen: «Herr, warum fasten wir und die Pharisäer, und du und deine Jünger fasten nicht?» 15Jmmanuel aber sprach zu ihnen: «Wie können die Unwissenden fasten und Leid tragen, solange sie des Wissens belehrt werden? 16Und wie kann der Lehrer fasten, wenn er die Unwissenden des Wissens belehren muss? 17Wahrlich, ich sage euch: Eure Lehren sind falsch, wenn ihr nach den Gesetzen eines Kultes fastet; das Fasten dient nur der Gesundheit des Leibes und der Bildung des Bewusstseins.»
THE PROBLEMS. One expects disciples to follow their lord or master, and surely Jesus' questioners here did also. So they must have wondered why Jesus, and not just his disciples, did not regularly fast. Here was their chance to find out, since they were asking Jesus himself. Yet for no evident reason they just inquire about the lack of fasting of his disciples.
Beare (p. 229) observed that there is a problem with the second half of Mt 9:15—it has nothing to do with any normal wedding celebration where the groom remains present along with the bride. Although the saying evidently is meant to portray that Jesus would not long be around, any analogy to a wedding is very poor.
Furthermore, Beare noted (p. 231) that the first half of the verse has to do with mourning, not fasting, and thus does not relate well to the preceding verse, Mt 9:14, which relates to fasting and not to mourning. Those who make a practice of fasting periodically do not intend to mourn periodically!
SOLUTION. From TJ 9:14 we see that John's disciples did include Jmmanuel, not just his disciples, in their question. A likely reason why the writer of Matthew omitted Jmmanuel/Jesus at this point was because he had invented the long period of fasting for Jesus during the Temptation story, and so it would be too blatantly inconsistent to imply that Jesus did not fast.
From the TJ viewpoint, judging from its cognate verses, TJ 9:14-17, we conclude that Mt 9:15 is a hastily contrived substitution designed to remove any mention of the value of knowledge and growth or evolution of the consciousness or spirit. Fasting is a frequent feature of spiritual practice, which Jmmanuel evidently did engage in from time to time, willingly if not otherwise during short periods when food was unavailable. An earlier TJ verse mentions its benefits a bit more:
TJ 6:26 26"You fast for the sake of your health and for the expansion of your consciousness, spirit and your knowledge."
TJ 6:26 26«Du fastest ja um deiner Gesundheit willen und um die Erweiterung deines Bewusstseins und deines Geistes und Wissens.»
The TJ verses are more coherent than the Matthean verses, making better sense and relating well to their previous verse. (Concerning a modern awareness about learning and teaching, we may note that though the brain occupies only 2% of the body's weight, it consumes 20% of its oxygen and caloric intake. And concerning TJ 9:16, and example of this comes from U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 20, 2003, in an article discussing the Depression: "For want of money, schools in Dayton, OH, opened only three days a week in January . In Georgia, more than 1,000 schools were closed. In Chicago, teachers toiled without pay, sme fainting in classrooms for lack of food.")
The TJ enables us to discern that the writer of Matthew altered its context of periodic fasting for the sake of spiritual benefit into one of fasting as a part of mourning. This in turn allowed him to obliquely allude to the mourning that would occur after Jesus (the bridegroom) would no longer be around. It is quite improbable that a literary hoaxer could have hit upon the TJ's line of thought here and carried it out so effectively. PHoax ≈ 0.20.
TJ 9:18 18"No one mends an old garment with a new patch of cloth, because the patch will tear again from the garment, and the rip will become worse."
TJ 9:18 18«Niemand flickt ein altes Kleid mit einem neuen Lappen Tuchs, denn der Lappen reisst doch wieder vom Kleid, und der Riss wird ärger.»
THE PROBLEM. Here the only problem is one of why this and the similar following verse were placed at this spot within Matthew. They seem to have no connection to the preceding discussion of the bridegroom, and to fasting and mourning. Beare (pp. 231-232) did not know the answer either, and he and other scholars could only speculate on what the possible interpretations of Mt 9:16-17 might be, while allowing that the two verses were not even connected to their preceding verses.
SOLUTION. With the preceding TJ verses (TJ 9:15-17, above) in mind, which the writer of Matthew had omitted, an answer to this problem does emerge. Mending an old garment with a new patch would be like fasting for the wrong reasona reason that does not serve the growth of the spirit. The old garment only becoming worse a short while later then corresponds to the spiritual condition of the ignorant becoming worse through fasting that serves only a religious cult rather than furthering their spiritual growth.
Since the TJ verse makes sense in its context while the Matthean verse does not, this verse comparison does lend some small weight to Matthew being dependent upon the TJ. PHoax ≈ 0.4.
Mt 9:22 22Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well.
TJ 9:24 24Then Jmmanuel turned around and saw her, and he said, "Be comforted, your faith has helped you," and the woman was well from that hour on. TJ 9:24 24Da wandte sich Jmmanuel um und sah sie und sprach: «Sei getrost, dein Vertrauen hat dir geholfen,» und die Frau ward gesund von Stunde an.
DISCUSSION. This is a verse from the pericope of the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage. The only difference between the two verses is that in Matthew Jesus calls her "daughter." One may suspect that the motivation for this was the same as in Mt 9:2 (see above) where "my son" occurs. And since the word "daughter" occurs (in its normal contextual usage) just three verses earlier, this may have reminded the writer that he could add this fatherly touch here, too.
The apparent difference between "instantly" and "that hour" is only apparent, because in the preferred Greek text "that hour," not "instantly," is also used.
TJ 9:29-36 29As Jmmanuel left and continued on from there, a blind man followed him, crying, "O Lord, you son of wisdom and knowledge who can use the power of your consciousness, take pity on me.".... 36And after the evil self-created delusional entities were cast out, behold, the [two] mutes could speak.
TJ 9:29-36 29Und als Jmmanuel von dannen weiterging, folgte ihm ein Blinder nach und schrie: «Ach Herr, du Sohn der Weisheit und des Wissens, der du die Kraft deines Bewusstseins zu nutzen vermagst, erbarme dich meiner.» ...36Und da die bösen Selbstwahnwesen waren ausgetrieben, siehe, da redeten die Stummen.
THE PROBLEM. This is the story of Jesus restoring sight to two blind men, followed by his restoring speech to one mute. Beare (p. 236) concluded that it is a doublet because of its similarity to the sight-restoring story of Mt 20:29-34. He felt that neither was original with Matthew. If so, Matthew altered the one blind beggar of Mark into two in both stories. Here we shall not jump to Beare's conclusion, but agree that the story at least contains one redaction, because of its use of "Son of David," which, under discussion of Mt 12:23, 21:9 and 22:42, we shall find to be an anachronistic phrase.
SOLUTION. There are TJ parallels to both Matthean stories. But in the first parallel, TJ 9:29-36, there is only one blind man whose sight is restored instead of the two in Matthew, while there are two deaf mutes restored, not just the one in Matthew. The second part of what Beare calls a doublet, referring to Mt 20:29-34, more closely parallels the TJ (21:1-9), with the TJ's healing in Jericho occurring to two blind men, as in Matthew. Beare believed both healings in Matthew were based upon Mk 10:46-52 involving the one blind man.
A solution to this doublet problem, consistent with the TJ, starts with the compiler of Matthew faithfully transcribing both sight-restoration miracles from the TJ. The healing miracles, along with the geographical settings, do seem to have been more faithfully reproduced by him than anything else. Thus, Matthew's gospel, at this stage written in Hebrew or Aramaic, pictured one blind man in the first miracle and two in the second. Next, we come to the writer of Mark in Rome, while he was making heavy use of Semitic Matthew and at times inserting details from the document available to him, known today as "Peter's Memoirs" (or proto-Mark), which paralleled material within Mt 8-11. He decided to include the first of the two blind-man stories among the several verse groupings from proto-Mark he would transplant into a later location in his gospel. (He made several such transplants, apparently in order to disguise the point at which his heavy reliance upon Matthew commenced (Mt 12), and to homogenize the detail within his gospel as a whole, so that the proto-Mark portion with its greater detail would not all be concentrated into one small portion of his gospel.)
In relocating the one-blind-man story, the writer of Mark noticed that if he were to transplant it right into Matthew's second sight-restoration miracle to take its place, this would have several advantages. It would avoid placing two sight-restoring miracles close together, which might look too suspiciously like editing. The substitution could be done simply without his worrying about whether or not the geographic setting would have to be altered. He would only have to change the two blind men to one, and put in the man's name, available to him from proto-Mark. It would thus put greater detail into the story he extracted from Matthew and help demonstrate the primacy of his gospel, which utilized pieces from proto-Mark. So, Matthew's story of the two blind men near Jericho became Mark's story of the one blind man near Jericho whose name, Bartimaeus, had been recorded by Judas in his stolen writing (proto-Mark) that was later recovered by Peter, but the name had been forgotten by Judas by the time he later wrote the TJ.
The main clues suggesting that the writer of Mark derived this one blind-man story in his gospel from proto-Mark and then tampered with it, aside from the TJ, are the presence of the man's name and the explanation to his gentile readers in Rome that Bartimaeus means "son of Timaeus." In redacting this area, then, it is suggested here that the writer of Mark first edited the two blind men into one, and then edited in his name, Bartimaeus, at the beginning of the story.
When the custodians of Matthew's gospel in Ephesus or Antioch or Jerusalem learned of this, they would have been greatly upset that in Mark the two blind men of Mt 20:29-34 had been altered into one. They could figure out what the writer of Mark had done, because their own Semitic gospel, at Mt 9:27-31, referred to the one blind man. So, in retaliation, the translator who converted Semitic Matthew into Greek altered this one blind man into two and, in redress of that, changed the number of mute people from two into one. This alteration served to emphasize that Mark's one blind man really should have been two; at the same time it did not devalue Matthew's gospel, since restoring sight to two men and speech to one man was, if anything, a more impressive miracle than restoring speech to two and sight to one. The earliest, Hebraic version of Matthew was then not given further distribution, and was phased out of circulation in favor of the new Greek version, which contained several other significant alterations or additions. Obviously, a solution of this nature could scarcely have been imagined, coming from a literary hoaxer or anyone else, without having a copy of the source for Hebraic Matthew on hand; i.e., the TJ. PHoax ≈ 0.2.
TJ 9:42 42Jmmanuel went about in all the cities and villages, taught in their synagogues and preached the mystery of Creation and of the laws of nature, so that the consciousness could attain omnipotence.
TJ 9:42 42Und Jmmanuel ging umher in alle Städte und Dörfer, lehrte in ihren Synagogen und predigte das Geheimnis der Schöpfung und der Gesetze der Natur, so das Bewusstsein zur Allmacht gelange.
THE PROBLEMS. As Beare noted (p. 237), this verse repeats Mt 4:23 word for word except that "the cities and villages" replaces "Galilee" and "Jesus" replaces "he." Although he did not come right out and say it, the obvious conclusion, in a sentence of this length, is that one of these two verses is an editorial repeat of the other. Since this one comes five chapters after the other, it is suspect of being modeled after the earlier one.
Again we see the phrase "their synagogues." The same criticism then applies as before (see under Mt 4:23): Why is this written from an outsider's point of view?
And criticism should be leveled against the phrase "gospel of the kingdom," since Jesus never explains what this gospel is or consists of.
SOLUTION. Although TJ 9:42 is similar to TJ 4:60, which Mt 4:23 parallels, its wording is significantly different. In particular, there is no mention of healing of diseases and infirmities here in TJ 9:42. In omitting the TJ's mention of what it was that Jmmanuel taught and why, the writer of Matthew fell back upon the very language he had used earlier, in Mt 4:23. Thus he again failed to supply clues as to what the gospel of the kingdom entailed.
And once again, "their synagogues" stemmed from the TJ verse, as written by Judas Iscariot in collaboration with Jmmanuel either while on the Silk Road to India or after reaching India.
Again the TJ impressively avoids the Matthean problems. However, its final clause may be misleading. One's spirit presumably does not reach omnipotence during just one lifetime of learning, no matter how outstanding that lifetime may be, but only reaches towards the omnipotence of Creation in lifetime after lifetime, judging from the rest of the TJ. (E.g., see TJ 34:5-16.) PHoax ≈ 0.45.
TJ 9:45-10:1a 45Then he spoke to his disciples, "The harvest is great, but there are few laborers to bring it in. 46Seek and pray in your consciousness that more laborers will be found for the harvesting." 47And so it came to pass that workers for the harvest were found, who gathered around Jmmanuel to become disciples.
1He called his twelve disciples to him...
TJ 9:45-10:1a 45Da sprach er zu seinen Jüngern: «Die Ernte ist gross, aber wenige sind der Arbeiter, sie einzubringen. 46Suchet und betet in eurem Bewusstsein, dass sich weitere Arbeiter für die Ernte finden.» 47So geschah also, dass sich Arbeiter für die Ernte fanden, die sich zu Jüngern um Jmmanuel sammelten.
1Und er rief seine zwölf Jünger zu sich...
THE PROBLEMS. It is not at all clear that the disciples would have known who the "Lord of the harvest" was, to pray to. Jesus had not used that term before, but instead had used "God" and "your Father." And the phrase is not used again in Matthew. The disciples had not yet, moreover, been told about the Final Judgment and so they would not have associated "harvest" with God's separation of good people from evil people in that final time. Although the writer of Matthew probably knew of, or formed, the phrase from Jer 2:3 ("Israel was holy to the LORD, the first fruits of his harvest..."), that verse goes on to say that all those who ate of this harvest became guilty. So the disciples would have needed instructions on what/who to pray for/to. If the harvest referred to Jesus getting the gospel of the kingdom across to the people so that they might accept it, why then did Jesus not refer to it as his own harvest?
Why is there no follow-up to this verse? These laborers, if they were attained, seem to have been distinct from the twelve disciples mentioned in the next verse. There was no need or motivation for an original writer to have written a verse like Mt 9:38 if he had no thoughts as to whether the laborers were acquired and the harvest was successful or not. Yet the verse is there, suggesting that perhaps the writer of Matthew omitted a follow-up sentence from his source document.
And why is there no mention, antecedent to the listing of the disciples of Mt 10:1, of how or when the additional seven disciples (besides Peter and Andrew, James and John, and Matthew) were acquired?
SOLUTION. The TJ has no strange "Lord of the harvest" phrase. There, the disciples are to direct their prayers for (more) laborers to their consciousness, as is consistent with TJ 6:7-8.
And in TJ 9:47 we see that there was a follow-up to the prayer request, and that the latter was successful. The TJ indicates, moreover, that some, if not all, of the additional laborers who were found became disciples, and that their number had become twelve by that point. The key difference in wording here is that in the TJ verse more laborers are prayed for, indicating that the disciples were the laborers who were too few, not yet being twelve in number, while in Matthew the prayer is just for "laborers" to send out. Thus the next verse, TJ 10:1, closely paralleled by Matthew 10:1, continues on to spell out the number and names of the disciples, now that they had reached their final total. This is the first time the disciples are referred to as being twelve in number. It makes sense that Jmmanuel would explain the disciples' mission to them soon after they had reached their full complementtwelve.
In the TJ, "harvest" quite evidently refers to those who hear, understand and accept Jmmanuel's teachings (see TJ 14:23; also TJ 15:8 and its parallel, Mt 13:8), and "harvesting" to the disciples' efforts to help get his teachings across to the people. And in the TJ, it is referred to as "the" harvest, not God's harvest.
It seems likely that the writer of Matthew omitted TJ 9:47 because he had pictured all twelve disciples as having already been selected, since at Mt 9:10,11,14,19,37 and their TJ cognates they are referred to as "his disciples" or "your disciples." This could imply twelve if one's mind has already desired or assumed them to be twelve in number by this point. Since the writer desired that in the "new world" the twelve disciples be seated in judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28), he likely thought of the twelve as having been chosen equally by God within a minimal period of time, rather than being acquired at three or more disparate times, with the last-acquired group having been gained only through the prayerful efforts of the previous or higher ranking disciples. This problem for him he then tried to solve by omitting TJ 9:46 and altering 9:45 slightly.
The writer of Mark avoided this problem by omitting Mt 9:37-38, and by having Jesus appoint twelve disciples (Mk 3:14) all at one time. However, in so doing he added an awkward twist: he appointed the twelve only after "his disciples" had already been with him for some time. Thus, it is not clear if all the disciples that had already been gathered by this time were included within the twelve who were appointed. In Matthew, only after more laborers had been harvested was it stated that the number of disciples was twelve.
The writer of Luke solved the problem in Lk 6:13 by following the lead of Mark, though he avoided some of Mark's awkwardness by making it clear that 12 apostles were chosen out of a much larger number of disciples. Although he utilized Mt 9:37-38, it was in the later context of a second choosing of disciples, this time seventy or seventy-two (Lk 10:1).
The fact that the TJ verses do not suffer from the Matthean problems, while introducing a new solution, in an inconspicuous manner, to the problem of when/where Jmmanuel picked up his final several disciples, allows little chance of a 20th-century hoaxer being involved here. PHoax ≈ 0.2.
Upon accumulating the estimated probabilities that the TJ is a hoax from the TJ-Mt 9 verse comparisons alone, we find a summary probability of 2.9 x 10-5. That is, the odds this chapter could have been written by a hoaxer is judged to be only one in about 34 thousand.
|Go Back to:||Make Comment in:||Go On to:|
|Verse Comparison, Introduction & Index||my Blog||Matthew 10|
1. In the 1996 TJ, the German word Gichtbrüchigen was translated as "man suffering from gout" when "paralytic" would have been preferable.
2. Davies, W. D. and Allison, Dale C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), p. 90.
3. Davies & Allison, A Critical Commentary, vol. 2, p. 95.
4. Davies & Allison, A Critical Commentary, vol. 2, p. 100.
5. This proto-Mark is discussed in much greater detail in Deardorff, The Problems of New Testament Gospel Origins (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 23-62. See also this link.