MATTHEW-TJ VERSE COMPARISONS, Mt 14

Mt 14:1-4a    1At that time Herod the
tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus; 2and he said to his
servants, "This is John the Baptist, he has been raised from the dead; that is
why these powers are at work in him." 3For Herod had seized John
and bound him and put him in prison, for the sake of Herodias, his brother
Philip's wife; 4because John said to him...

TJ 16:1-4a    1At the time that Jmmanuel was staying
in Nazareth, news about him reached Herod. 2And he spoke to his
people, "Surely this is John the Baptist, who has arisen from the dead and who
therefore possesses such mighty powers." 3For Herod had seized
John, bound him and put him into prison because of Herodias, the wife of his
brother Philippus, and had him beheaded. 4However it had come to
pass previously that John reprimanded Herod, saying,...

TJ 16:1-4a    1Zu der Zeit, als Jmmanuel in
Nazareth weilte, drang die Kunde über ihn vor zu Herodes. 2Und er
sprach zu seinen Leuten: «Das ist sicher Johannes der Täufer; der ist von den
Toten auferstanden, deshalb wirken in ihm solche Kräfte.» 3Denn
Herodes hatte Johannes gegriffen, gebunden und in das Gefangnis gelegt wegen
der Herodias, der Frau seines Bruders Philippus, und hatte ihm den Kopf
abschlagen lassen. 4Es begab sich zuvor aber so, dass Johannes ihn
rugte und sprach:...

THE PROBLEMS.  In the opening verse to the episode
of Herod the tetrarch and the beheading of John the Baptist, "At that time" is
unnecessarily vague. It must refer to the time frame of the preceding Matthean
verse or later, and so it refers to the end of Jesus' visit to Nazareth, or to
some time afterwards. The preceding verse, Mt 13:58, states that Jesus "did not
do many mighty works there," which indicates that his visit to Nazareth was then
over. In either case, the events of the following 12 verses do not appear to be
a flashback, which they otherwise may seem to be. That is, there would not have
been sufficient time for these events, including the burying of John's body by
his disciples and their seeking out of Jesus, to have taken place after Jesus
left Nazareth. W. G. Kümmel has criticized the compiler of Matthew for not
noticing that the beheading episode, plus the actions taken by John's disciples,
were a flashback, and not allowing for it in his editing.[1] Similarly, it is concluded
by Carson that either verses 3-12 are an excursus (an addition as an
afterthought) or else the chronology of that section is wrong.[2]

At the time of verse 14:1, John has not yet been beheaded. How then could
Herod even have imagined that the spirit of John the Baptist dwelled in Jesus,
so as to say that Jesus "is John the Baptist?"

SOLUTION.   With TJ 16:1,
the time referred to is clearly in the past—sometime during Jmmanuel's stay in
Nazareth. The TJ's use of the words "was staying" (or alternatively "dwelled"
("weilte")) suggests he was there several days or perhaps weeks, and not just
passing through. It was during this time, then, that Herod heard of Jmmanuel and
the miracles he had wrought earlier. TJ 16:3 then indicates beyond any doubt
that the beheading episode was a flashback, and so Kümmel's criticism does not
apply to the TJ. Herod evidently thought that the spirit of the dead John
might be inhabiting the body of Jmmanuel.

The writer of Matthew omitted the anticipatory mention of Herod having John
beheaded in TJ 16:3, probably for the reasons expressed under the discussion of
Mt 14:9; this gospel writer did not wish to denigrate Herod Antipas any more
than necessary.

In the earlier discussion of Mt 13:54 we noted the attention paid by Beare (p. 319) to the
peculiar lack of mention of Nazareth. Mt 14:1 above is another example of the
compiler's avoidance of the word, and explains his motivation for the redaction.
That is, he was "punishing" Nazareth for its inhabitants' unbelief in Jesus'
healing powers by omitting mention of the town's name in this section of
Matthew. However, his avoidance of it at Mt 14:1 helped create the flashback
problem.

In considering the TJ-hoax hypothesis, one can only wonder how a hoaxer would
have been perceptive and creative enough to realize that omission of "Nazareth,"
along with omission of the anticipatory mention of John's beheading, caused the
flashback problem. Only with hindsight does this become apparent. Indeed, a New
Age hoaxer would not likely even have been aware of the flashback problem. On
top of this, we find reasonable cause why the writer of Matthew did not wish to
write down the name "Nazareth" at this point in his gospel. PHoax
≈ 0.1.

Mt 14:9    9And the king was sorry; but
because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it [the head of John the
Baptist] to be given.

TJ
16:10-11    10The king was pleased that Herodias had
persuaded her daughter to demand the head of John the Baptist, because this way
he was not guilty in the eyes of the people, inasmuch as he had taken an oath.
11But Herodias' daughter did not know that Herod and her mother had
agreed, even before the dance, to demand the head of John the Baptist through
her.

TJ
16:10-11    10Und der König war froh, dass Herodias
ihre Tochter überredet hatte, das Haupt des Täufers zu fordern, denn so traf ihn
vor dem Volk keine Schuld, da er ja den Eid geleistet hatte.
11Herodias’ Tochter aber wusste nicht, dass Herodes und ihre Mutter
schon vor dem Tanze eins waren, durch sie das Haupt des Täufers zu
fordern.

THE PROBLEMS.   As expressed
by Beare (p. 324), it is surprising that Herod would be distressed by the
request, because he was earlier reported as already inclined to execute John and
was looking for an excuse to get it done. John had essentially charged Herod
with adultery, and this could not have been graciously accepted by Herod. Davies
& Allison agree: "the reference to Herod grieving makes sense only in
Mark."[3]

And why is "oaths" in the plural? Only one oath is mentioned. Mark has it the
same way (Mk 6:26), indicating, with the assumption of Markan dependence upon
Matthew, that Matthew indeed had it in the plural.

SOLUTION.   In the TJ
(16:10) version the "king" is indeed glad, not distressed, and Beare's criticism
does not apply to it. However, Beare's opinion is not generally expressed; those
favoring biblical inerrancy wherever possible assume that Mark's version of the
event is to be implied, in which Herod is said to have liked John and kept him
"safe" in prison (Mk
6:20).

But we do see that the writer of Matthew held a not too unfavorable view of
Herod Antipas, in comparison with his abhorrence of Herod the Great. This might
have been due to the fact that Antipas is known to have celebrated Passover and
the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. Or it might be due in part to a verse the
writer of Matthew had read earlier within the nativity section of the TJ:

TJ 2:24    24When Herod Antipas realized that
he had nothing to fear from the young boy [Jmmanuel], who was credited only with
great wisdom and knowledge, he felt safe in his realm. Thus, he promised the
messenger of the celestial son Gabriel he would no longer pursue Mary, Joseph
and Jmmanuel.

TJ 2:24
24Da Herodes Antipas nun sah, dass er von dem
Knäblein nichts zu befürchten hatte und dass ihm nur grosse Weisheit und Wissen
zugeredet war, fühlte er sich ungefährdet in seinem Reich, so er dem Abgesandten
des Himmelssohnes Gabriel zusagte, Maria und Joseph und Jmmanuel nicht weiter zu
verfolgen.

Thus the writer of Matthew may well have held Herod Antipas in a much more
favorable light than he held King Herod.

TJ 16:11 is included along with 16:10, as it informs us that Herod and
Herodias had agreed before the birthday celebration dance to induce her daughter
to ask for the Baptist's head. The writer of Matthew may have thought of this
prior agreement as akin to an oath, and therefore mentioned "oaths" (plural) in
his verse. He did not, however, include this TJ verse here, because of his
relatively favorable view of Herod Antipas. He was thus interested in placing
all the blame for the beheading on Herodias.

Now consider another topic: the incorrect use of "king" in Mt 14:9 and TJ
16:10 as a title for Herod Antipas. It could easily just represent loose usage
of the term by the writer of the TJ, since the correct title is given upon first
mention. Josephus, for example, loosely used the title "king" for the ethnarch
Archelaus a couple of times.[4] The writer of Mark, in his
parallel verses of Mk 6:14-28, then made the wrong choice in thinking either
that "king" was correct and "tetrarch" incorrect or that "tetrarch" was not very
understandable to gentiles, and so he utilized "king" throughout.

The writer of Mark did improve upon Matthew by adding, in Mk 6:20, that Herod
considered John to be a "righteous and holy man" and that he "kept him safe."
This nearly eliminated the contradiction commented upon by Beare. However, this
addition generated its own inconsistencies, since Herod would not have feared
John, due to his influence with the people, and at the same time have
looked kindly upon the man who wielded such power with the people and who had
charged him with adultery. And Herod certainly did not "keep John safe" by
having him beheaded. These explanations for the differing wordings in Mark and
Matthew are every bit as plausible as the "mainstream" contention that the
writer of Matthew was following Mark and failed to correct one of Mark's usages
of "king" in front of Herod's name, and that the writer of Mark was merely
carelessly inconsistent in having Herod treat John with respect for being holy
and righteous but yet having him beheaded.

The fact that the key problem lies with Matthew and not with the TJ, combined
with the absence of any anticipation of the TJ's "solution" to the problem in
scholarly NT literature, suggest that the possibility of hoax here is rather
slim: PHoax ≈ 0.2.

Now it may be asked of the TJ, just as of Matthew, how did either writer
learn of the details of Antipas' birthday celebration, and that, for example,
Herodias had prompted her daughter to ask for the head of the Baptist? With
Matthew or Mark we know of no answer to this question, but with the TJ, there is
one. In the TJ's chapter 4 one of the marvels that Jmmanuel was shown during the
period of 40 days and nights was a facility that permitted the guardian angels
to view "the entire land of Israel, alive and true, humans and animals and
everything that was there," with no secret being concealed (TJ 4:15-16). They
must have kept close tabs on John the Baptist, if as we have supposed, he was
also a contactee of theirs, though as was usually the case, they avoided direct
interference in human affairs. It is conjectured, then, that Jmmanuel learned
what had transpired from one of the guardian angels, possibly from his father,
Gabriel; this could have occurred while he was being transported away by the
"metallic light" from Israel to Syria (i.e., after the Ascension), or
subsequently. Still later, Jmmanuel's writer would then learn of the beheading
event from Jmmanuel and/or have it dictated to him by Jmmanuel. It should be
noted that the modern UFO phenomenon presents many instances in which UFO
intelligence has disclosed its knowledge of intimate human affairs, such as the
intricacies of how our underground nuclear missiles can be disarmed, and what
UFO witnesses are thinking at the time of their sightings.[5]

Mt 14:13    13Now when Jesus heard this,
he withdrew from there in a boat to a lonely place apart. But when the crowds
heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns.

TJ 16:18
18When Jmmanuel heard this [of the beheading event as
told to Jmmanuel by John's disciples], he was overcome with fear and retreated
by boat to a deserted area. However, when the people heard that, they followed
him on foot from the towns.

TJ 16:18
18Und da Jmmanuel das hörte, überkam ihn Furcht
und er wich von dannen auf einem Schiff in eine einsame Gegend, doch so das Volk
das hörte, folgte es ihm nach zu Fuss aus den Städten.

THE PROBLEM.   Here, Beare
(pp. 325-326) noted that the introductory sentence was not very clear. It seemed
to him that Jesus was portrayed as going away, having heard of John's beheading,
as if he were seeking refuge. The problem is that Matthew does not explain why
Jesus suddenly withdrew, forcing the questioning reader to wonder. The fact that
Matthew's flashback or excursus of verses 14:3-12 does not seem like one, due to
14:1-2, made it seem to many scholars, e.g., Carson,[6] that "this" in 14:13 must
refer back to 14:1-2 (when Herod heard of Jesus' fame) rather than to John's
beheading. It is not clear here whether or not Beare understood the flashback
problem; by following Mark's version more closely than Matthew's he seems to
have taken the flashback for granted.

SOLUTION.   In the TJ's
previous verse, it is apparent that "this" refers to the beheading event. The
compiler of Matthew most certainly deleted the motivation of fear here, and
Beare almost guessed that it belongs back in. Another scholar who argues
similarly to Beare on this is E. Bammel. In keeping track of Jesus' movements
before and after the beheading of John, Bammel finds a change at this juncture
that "points to Jesus having felt himself to be in a state of danger after the
beheading of his baptizer." The TJ confirms Bammel's deduction (made in 1984).[7]

It is inherently less likely that a literary hoaxer would notice this rather
obscure problem and correct it than that the writer of Matthew would omit any
mention of fear on the part of Jesus. PHoax ≈ 0.25.

Mt 14:14    14As he went ashore, he saw a
great throng; and he had compassion on them, and healed their sick.

TJ 16:19
19Jmmanuel saw the large crowd from the water, and
feeling sorry for them, he went ashore and healed their sick.

TJ 16:19
19Und Jmmanuel sah vom Wasser aus die grosse
Menge; und es jammerte ihn derselben, so er an Land ging und ihre Kranken
heilte.

THE PROBLEM.   The crowds
evidently were following Jesus along the shore as he went in the boat. Otherwise
they would not have been there when he landed. And if they could see him, he
certainly would have seen many of them while still in the boat and before coming
ashore. So why does Matthew imply that he didn't know the crowd was there until
he went ashore?

SOLUTION.   The TJ verse
describes the situation as it more likely actually happened. It is possible that
this minor Matthean problem, not commented upon in any literature I'm aware of,
arose only from a flawed translation when Semitic Matthew was translated into
Greek. This is an example, in that case, of Rashid's translation having been the
more accurate one. PHoax ≈ 0.35.

Mt 14:17    17They said to him, "We have
only five loaves here and two fish."

TJ 16:22
22But they said, "We have nothing here but five loaves
of bread and three fish."

TJ 16:22
22Sie aber sprachen: «Wir haben hier nichts als
fünf Brote und drei Fische.»

THE PROBLEM.   This verse is
from the feeding of the five thousand, and its criticism is one of hindsight. Is
it just an improbable coincidence that the number of elements of food in a
nature miracle of this sort is found to total seven, the sacred mystic number?
One may suspect the embracing of the sacred to have been the reason because in
the feeding of the four thousand, which appears to be a repeated, further
improved version of this feeding, there are said to have been seven loaves and a
few fish (Mt 15:34).

SOLUTION.   The reason why
the compiler of Matthew seems to have redacted three fish into two indeed
appears to have been so that the sum (5+2) of the ingredients in this miracle
would equal seven, the mystic number. There seems no reason whatsoever for a
hoaxer to have altered the TJ verse in the opposite direction, or to have
stooped to such a minor alteration. Here and in Celestial Teachings is
the first time that a change of this nature has been suggested; would a hoaxer
bent on pushing a New Age philosophy have been creative enough to invent it?
PHoax ≈ 0.2.

Mt 14:19    19Then he ordered the crowds
to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked
up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and
the disciples gave them to the crowds.

TJ 16:24
24And telling the people to stay put, he took the five
loaves of bread and the three fish, spoke secret words, broke the loaves of
bread, cut up the fish and gave them to his disciples; and the disciples gave
them to the people.

TJ 16:24
24Und er hiess das Volk sich lagern und nahm die
fünf Brote und die drei Fische, sprach geheimnisvolle Worte und brach die Brote
und die Fische und gab sie den Jüngern, und die Jünger gaben sie dem
Volk.

THE PROBLEM.   The idea of
blessing bread, abbreviated as just "blessed," or "blessing," without stating
the direct object of the blessing (the noun in the accusative case—the bread),
is not present in the Old Testament scriptures. Rather, it developed within
early Christianity only as the Communion rite developed. Thus it appears to be
an anachronism attributed to the lips of Jesus. There is one Old Testament
mention of God blessing bread (Ex 23:25), but it is not, of course, expressed in
the abbreviated form that developed after the Christian Communion practice had
became commonplace by the late date of the writing of Matthew. "Blessed" is
expressed in the same manner in Mt 26:26, which then
involves this same redaction and is strongly suspect of involving further
redaction.

Another problem, though a minor one, is that although the loaves were
distributed and multiplied, there is no mention that the fish were likewise
distributed. This has caused R. H. Gundry to liken this feeding to the communion
sacrament, which doesn't involve fish.[8] If this were the intent, it
would indicate another anachronism within the passage.

SOLUTION  AND
DISCUSSION.   The TJ's "stay put" is a liberal translation
of the Gernan "sich lagern," which could also be translated as "recline."

In the TJ verse Jmmanuel does not bless the bread, but rather speaks some
mysterious words. These may or may not have been akin to a blessing or prayer of
some sort, one doesn't know.

Regarding the TJ's distribution of the fish along with the loaves, its German
has it, literally, as "...and broke the bread and the fish and gave them to the
disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people." Since it was awkward for
whatever Aramaic verb had been used for "broke" to refer to cutting or breaking
up the fish also, the writer of Matthew had evidently let it refer just to the
loaves; in so doing the fish fragments were neglected from this point on. This
is an example of a detail so minor that the skeptic may wonder how any literary
hoaxer of the TJ would have taken notice to correct it.

Upon examining Mark's version of this portion of the feeding, one finds that
its writer exaggerated Matthew's "grass" into "green grass" (in Mk 6:39,
apparently another of his changes for the sake of change), while Luke, in
its parallel account of the feeding of the five thousand, does not mention
"grass" (Lk 9:14). The latter might be significant, because from comparison of
the TJ with Luke elsewhere we know that Luke's writer had read the TJ and made
limited use of it. Hence he may have been utilizing the TJ here in this minor
matter, in overriding both Mark and Matthew. On the other hand, the writer of
John (Jn 6:10), though also having had some access to the TJ, expands upon the
theme of grass, indicating his dependence upon Mark and/or Matthew.
PHoax ≈ 0.4.

Mt 14:21    21And those who ate were about
five thousand men, besides women and children.

TJ 16:26
26And there were about five thousand who had eaten.

TJ 16:26
26Die aber gegessen hatten, waren bei fünftausend
Menschen.

THE PROBLEM.   Here, Beare
(p. 328) noted, in comparison with Mark, that the writer of Matthew enhanced the
story by an indefinite number of women and children. Although I have attempted
to avoid using a conclusion from Beare if it is based just upon a distinction
between Matthew and Mark, I have included this one because the Matthean "besides
women and children" does have the appearance of being an editorial addition. How
could anyone quickly or easily estimate the number of men present when women and
children were mixed in? And surely, no actual headcount was taken. In an
after-the-fact estimate, it's the total number of people that enters into the
eyewitness's recollection.

SOLUTION.   Beare was
correct; the writer of Matthew did enhance the scale of the miracle from what
his source text reported. However, this source text was the TJ, not Mark.
PHoax ≈ 0.35.

It is interesting to note that in Mark's version of the event (Mk 6:44), the
number who ate were 5,000 men, with no mention of women or children. Why would
the writer of Mark have scaled down the miracle relative to Matthew?   Elsewhere in this web
site, in Celestial Teachings and in The Problems of New Testament
Gospel Origins, I have pointed out how the many minor deviations of Mark
relative to Matthew, aside from all its Matthean omissions, appear to be mostly
changes for the sake of change. Many of these are in the form of dualisms or
pleonasms—saying the same thing twice in somewhat different words. A plausible
reason was noted for this editorial behavior on the part of the writer of
Mark—to make his gospel look different in appearance from Matthew. This was
necessary because he had to copy so much from Matthew, especially from Mt 12 on.
The omission within Mark of "besides women and children" appears to be just such
a "change for the sake of change." With so many persons already involved in the
miracle (5,000 or more) it did not really matter whether or not women and
children were included, so this was a place the writer of Mark could make a
change. In so doing, however, he introduced the inconsistency that among that
large a throng there must have been women and children present, and surely they
must have eaten also. But Mark implies that only the men ate the loaves of
bread!

Mt 14:23    23And after he had dismissed
the crowds, he went up into the hills by himself to pray. When evening came he
was there alone.

TJ 16:28
28After he had sent the people away, he climbed up a
small mountain alone in order to rest and regain his depleted strength. And so
he was there alone in the evening.

TJ 16:28
28Und da er das Volk von sich gelassen hatte,
stieg er allein auf einen kleinen Berg, dass er sich erhole und seine erschöpfte
Kraft neu sammle, und also war er am Abend allein daselbst.

THE PROBLEM.   How did anyone know
that Jesus had done this, to write about it? These events occurred after he had
dismissed his disciples. If the Gospel of Matthew had been written by the
disciple Matthew, and if Jesus had told this disciple about this, then it could
have been recorded. But if, as most scholars suspect, the Gospels were not
written until much later by others than those to whom they are attributed, this
remains as one of the "witness" problems.

A minor point, commented upon by Beare (p. 331), is that there was no
mountain close to the shore of Lake Galilee. Although the RSV translation uses
the term "hills," the Greek text from which it derives uses the term
"mountain."

SOLUTION.   The TJ indicates
that it was written by Judas Iscariot, who could have been informed of these
happenings soon afterwards by Jmmanuel. If by the time Judas wrote it, however,
which was at least several years after the crucifixion, he had forgotten it,
Jmmanuel himself could have refreshed Judas's memory on it and on many other
events of his Palestinian ministry. (See elsewhere in this web
site for explanation of the false rumor depicting Judas Iscariot, rather than
Juda the Pharisee, as the betrayer of Jmmanuel who then committed suicide.)

The TJ text does mention "small mountain" (kleinen Berg), indicating that the
RSV interpretive translation correctly anticipated the source text here.
PHoax ≈ 0.4.

Mt 14:29-31    29He said, "Come." So
Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
30but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he
cried out, "Lord save me." 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand
and caught him, saying to him, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?"

TJ
16:39-44    39And Peter stepped out of the boat, walked on
the water and approached Jmmanuel. 40But when strong thunder ripped
through the howling storm, he was startled and began to sink, screaming,
"Jmmanuel, help me!" 41Jmmanuel quickly went to him, stretched out
his hand and grabbed him, saying, "Oh you of little knowledge, why are you
startled, and why do you become doubtful in your fright? 42The power
of your knowledge gives you the ability, as you have just witnessed.
43You trusted in my words before the thunder came, but then you were
frightened and began to doubt, and so the power of knowledge left you and your
ability disappeared. 44Never doubt the power of your spirit, which is
a part of Creation itself and therefore knows no limits of power."

TJ
16:39-44    39Und Petrus trat aus dem Schiff und
ging auf den Wassern und ging auf Jmmanuel zu. 40Als aber ein lauter
Donner das Heulen des Sturmes zerriss, erschrak er und hub an zu sinken, schrie
und sprach: «Jmmanuel, hilf mir!» 41Jmmanuel aber eilte zu ihm und
reckte alsbald die Hand aus und ergriff ihn und sprach: «Oh du Kleinwissender,
warum erschrickst du, und warum zweifelst du im Schreck? 42Die Kraft
deines Wissens gibt dir das Können, so du eben gesehen hast. 43Meinen
Worten hast du vertraut ehe der Donner kam, dann aber bist du erschrocken und
hast gezweifelt, so dich also die Kraft des Wissens verliess und dein Künnen
dahinschwand. 44Zweifle nie an der Kraft deines Geistes, der doch ein
Teil der Schöpfung selbst ist und daher keine Grenzen der Macht
kennt.»

THE PROBLEMS.   First, a
very minor problem. In this miracle of Jesus and Peter walking on water, the
observer or narrator is presumably one of the disciples in the boat. From his
viewpoint, Peter went toward Jesus; we should not expect the text to say, "came
to Jesus," unless it is an edited version giving deference to Jesus as a figure
of worship.

The gusty wind had been blowing all along, judging from the rest of the
passage, so that Peter would have felt the strong wind even before he stepped
out onto the water, not just some time later. Thus it does not seem plausible
that the wind, or a gust of wind, would have been the factor causing Peter to
panic.

When Peter panicked and started to sink, one should expect him to have
instinctively cried out for help using Jesus' name, not a formal title of
respect like "Lord."

It is implausible that Peter would have walked the entire distance to Jesus
before becoming scared and starting to sink in the water. The odds are high that
the sinking incident would have happened at some intermediate distance from
Jesus rather than at an arm's length away.

Finally, it is unrealistic that Jesus would not have explained to the
disciples something about how it was that he, and even Peter to some extent,
too, could walk on water.

SOLUTION.   Because of the
TJ's emphasis on spiritual power we must take this episode seriously rather than
dismissing it out of hand. Upon so doing, the above criticisms come to mind,
though they were all prompted by a comparison of the Matthean and TJ texts. In
the TJ version, Peter went towards Jmmanuel, he was startled during the storm by
a loud clap of thunder, he instinctively cried out to Jmmanuel for help, he was
some distance from Jmmanuel when he began to sink, and Jmmanuel then went some
distance to Peter to rescue him. It may be noted that TJ 16:29 indicates that a
storm (thunderstorm) had moved over the area, and this produced the strong
winds.

We speculate that the compiler of Matthew did not wish Peter's participation
in the miracle to detract from Jesus' divinity, stature and authority, so he
edited out the part about Jmmanuel obeying Peter's call to help him, and
likewise reworded the beginning of the story so that Peter came to Jmmanuel. He
further downgraded Peter's act by allowing the mere wind, not thunder, to
startle him. The writer of Mark, upon copying from the Gospel of Matthew,
omitted Peter's participation in this event, probably because he did not want
the miraculousness of the event to be diluted by a mere disciple participating
in it.[9]

And one sees that the TJ account indicates that Jmmanuel did explain to his
disciples the combination of knowledge and trust in one's spirit needed to be
able to carry out such an apparently miraculous feat. It was out of the
question, of course, for the writer of Matthew to have included that
explanation.

One might ask, why did the writer of Matthew omit the thunder? In those days
thunder and lightning, and earthquakes and such were considered by most people
to be actions of God, with thunder being akin to God's loud voice. When thunder
is mentioned in the OT, it either represents God's voice speaking to some
person(s), or else just represents his anger directed at them. But in this
incident God did not enter into the picture. It was not an occasion when God had
anything to say or when he should have been angry at Jesus. Quite likely for
this reason his voice (the thunder) was edited out.

The very fact that these several criticisms of Matthew come only from the
hindsight of having the TJ on hand indicates the odds are very small that a
literary hoaxer could have invented these historically more realistic points.
PHoax ≈ 0.2.

Interestingly, literature on the modern UFO abduction phenomenon abounds with
reports that the aliens engaging in the abductions are quite capable of gliding
or floating across the ground in a walking-type motion but at a short distance
above the surface.[10] Often this occurs when
the aliens usher the victim out of a bedroom or automobile into their UFO craft,
in which case the victim may participate in the floating motion. The analogy
with "walking on water" by the son of an alien is then evident.

Mt 14:33    33And those in the boat
worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

TJ 16:48
48Those who were in the boat marveled and said, "You are
indeed a master of the spirit and someone who knows the laws of
Creation."

TJ 16:48
48Die aber in dem Schiffe waren, wunderten sich
und sprachen: «Du bist wahrlich ein Meister des Geistes und ein Wissender der
Schöpfungsgesetze.»

THE PROBLEM.   The disciples
here are making the confession of the church with the christological affirmation
"Son of God."[11] This then is an
anachronistic utterance placed upon their lips. However, one wonders why the
Greek text, upon which the Bible translations depend, renders it as "Truly you
are a Son of God."

SOLUTION.   The disciples
instead speak in terms of what Jmmanuel had taught them about the human spirit
and Creation.

On the one hand we see that the writer of Matthew could not have left the TJ
verse intact without making it theologically acceptable to him and the early
church. In so doing, altering "a master of the spirit" into "a Son of God," it
seems that he forgot to replace the indefinite article, a, with "the."
Later Bible editors made the minor change so that the wording would agree with
"what it just had to be." On the other hand we find that the TJ verse suffers
from no such problem, while being consistent with its context. It is further
doubtful that a literary hoaxer could have corrected the Matthean text so well.
PHoax ≈ 0.35.

Regarding Mark, it is consistent with many of its verses for its writer, when
utilizing this verse from Matthew (in Mk 6:51), to have omitted the "Son of God"
confession so that the Jewish disciples would not look so good in Christian
terms. However, when Matthew's "son of God" phrase came from the lips of a
centurion (Mt 27:54), the writer of Mark used the phrase (Mk 15:39).

Upon accumulating the
individual probabilities against the hoax hypothesis from the verse comparisons
of Mt 14 versus TJ 16 we find the summary probability for hoax here to be but
4.1 x 10-5.

Go Back to:

Make Comment in:

Go On to:

Verse Comparison,
Introduction & Index

my
Blog

Matthew
15

REFERENCES

1. Kümmel, Werner Georg, Introduction to the New
Testament, transl. A. J. Mattill, 14th ed. rev. (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1966), p. 76.

2. Carson, D. A., "Matthew," in The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), pp.
340-341.

3. 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, 1992), p. 474.

4. Josephus, Antiquities 17.9.1-2,4.

5. See, for example, Fowler, Raymond E., Interplanetary
Visitors (San Jose: Authors Choice Press, 1974), and Haines, Richard,
CE-5 Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks,
1998).

6. Carson, "Matthew" in The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, p. 341.

7. Bammel, E., "Jesus as a political agent in a version of the
Josippon." In Jesus and the Politics of his Day, E. Bammel and C.F.D.
Moule, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 227.

8. Gundry, Robert H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary
and Theological Art, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1982), p.
294.

9. See Parker, Pierson, "The posteriority of Mark," in New
Synoptic Studies, W. R. Farmer, ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press,
1983), p. 85, for the alternative or additional view that the writer of Mark was
especially unfavorably disposed towards Peter.

10. E.g., see Fowler, Raymond E., The Andreasson Affair
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979), pp. 174-175.

11. Davies and Allison, A Critical Commentary, vol. 2,
p. 510.