Does the TJ Contradict the Sequence?

Each critical Junction shall be explained in more detail:

(Rough Draft-Edited but still incomplete)

As one reads the book of Matthew while examining the grand timeline of all reported events of the life of J, one will notice that there are many times when an earlier chronological event in the life of J is reported by Matthew in his narrative after reporting a later chronological event in the life of J. As one will see, each and every time that Matthew does this, he properly uses either a time indicator or a transition which allows him to revert to a past event in his narrative between such events. Therefore, whenever an earlier chronological event is reported after a later chronological event, we will refer to this as reaching a "critical junction" in Matthew's narrative. At each critical junction, if Matthew does not properly allow for reversion to a past event, then he will improperly place an event in a wrong time period in relation to where the other writers place the event. If this is so, then Matthew can be charged with not being competent on the matters of chronological progression of the reported events of the life of J. However, if Matthew always properly allows for reversion to an earlier time period with the language he uses, then this will reveal Matthew's competence on the chronological progression of the events of the life of J, showing that he was likely one who walked with J and talked with J. At the same time, if the author of the Talmud of Jmmanuel ever does not properly allow for reversion to a past event, then he or she will improperly place an event in an incorrect time period in relation to where the other writers have placed the event. If this is so, then the TJ author can be charged with not being competent on the matters of chronological progression of the reported events of the life of J and will likely reveal that he or she was simply copying off of Matthew and distorting the details of the events, adding some events while cutting others, since all events that have their cognates in Matthew are reported in the exact same order that Matthew has reported them. We have already noted that it is next to impossible for this to have occurred by independent investigations by the two authors unless all events are reported in chronological order or that the authors had the exact same purposes in reporting the events in the particular orders that they chose. Let's now examine the language of each reporter at each critical junction in more detail.

1. First Chronological Point to Mention (Not a Part of Grand Timeline):
It is very clear as one reads the Talmud of Jmmanuel that the TJ has the wise men from the Orient arriving on the very night of Jmmanuel's birth. Matthew, however, does not show that the wise men came on the night of the child's birth. In fact, he gives many details that would show that he believed this was not the case and that it was, perhaps, many months later.

It is at this time that it will be shown a huge difference between the recording of the events in the early years of the life of J by both Matthew and Luke as compared to the cognates of the same events in the Talmud of Jmmanuel:

Lu 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the BABE wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
Lu 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the BABE lying in a manger.

The Greek word that Luke used for "babe" in his birth scene with the 3 shepherds is brephos- meaning a new-born child, an infant, a babe. This Greek word is used for an infant that is either still in the mother's womb or who has just been newly born. Notice how Luke says, at this time, that the babe was lying in a manger (this might be located, perhaps, in a stable- such as where the Talmud of Jmmanuel records the visit of the three wise men.) So from Luke, we see that the 3 shepherds did come on the very night of J's birth.

But Matthew, concerning the wise men, records:
Mt 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the YOUNG CHILD; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
Mt 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the YOUNG CHILD was.
Mt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the YOUNG CHILD with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

The Greek word that Matthew consistently uses for “young child” in this passage is paidion- meaning a young child, not a newly born babe. Matthew never uses the Greek word "brephos" when describing the child in the scene of the wise men, unlike Luke in his scene with the three shepherds. This is to show that the child, during the visit of the wise men, was older than a newborn. The TJ is the only one that seems to call this young one both an infant and a young child interchangeably as it seemingly attempts to combine Matthew and Luke into one account. This could be used as evidence that the author of the TJ was attempting to use both accounts in creating the story of the TJ and did not realize that the accounts were set in two very different time settings. Otherwise, one must believe that a very clever chronological conspiracy has occurred even here, at the birth scene.

Matthew says at the end of his first chapter that “he called his name Jesus.” Luke states that this occurred 8 days after J’s birth (Luke 2:21). Matthew, then, when compared to Luke, has already separated the birth scene from the visit of the wise men by at least 8 days by stating “he called his name Jesus.” Most scholars recognize that the visit of the wise men, as found in Matthew and also having its cognate in the Talmud of Jmmanuel, occurred over 40 days after J’s birth, after the visit of Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem that is recorded in Luke. What would the parents still be doing in the stable over 40 days after the birth of the child as recorded in the TJ? This is why Matthew shows that the child and Mary were in a "house." It is reasonable to conclude that Mary and Joseph were likely able to find a dwelling place shortly after the birth scene. It was only on the night of the birth that they could not find room in the inn. The author of the TJ may have noticed that the Greek word Matthew uses in his account for "house" means simply "a dwelling place" and could be a dwelling place either for humans or animals. This could be why Mary and Joseph are located in a "stable" in the TJ’s cognate of Matthew’s verse 10 of chapter 2 since the author of the TJ desired to have the wise men come on the night of J's birth (when both Mary and Joseph were present as found in Luke's account of the visit of the three shepherds). It would make sense in Matthew's account that Joseph might not be present at the time of the visit of the magi, unlike in the TJ, because, as can be seen in Matthew's account, the visit of the wise men does not occur on the night of the birth. Joseph very well could have been out in the field at work and then later returned home to find the wise men there. Further evidence that Matthew's scene occurs quite some time after the birth is that the wise men asked: "where is the one born?..." not, "where will the one be born?..." The wise men in Matthew’s account knew for certain that J had already been born and also that J had been born at least several months before (as we shall soon see). In the TJ, however, a strange detail is found.

In TJ 2:4, the wise men say that when they saw a light in the sky, it said "follow the tail of the light because the king of wisdom of the Jews IS BORN, who will bring great knowledge." If one concludes that the light had appeared and disappeared to the wise men multiple times (even though the TJ never says this) and this statement was made the last time that the light appeared to the wise men, it is strange that the voice from the light said that this one "is born" because it would seem that the wise men had lost track of the light for a while, perhaps for days at least, which is why they had to go into Jerusalem and ask around to determine where the child was. Nevertheless, they later arrive and find the child that just seems to have been born that very night. If it had been even just days since they last saw the light that said the child was already born, why were Mary and Joseph still at the manger with a newly born infant when the wise men finally found them? If the voice from the light had told the wise men this when the light first appeared to them (when they were still in the Orient), it would be even stranger that Mary and Joseph would still be at the manger with a "newly born infant" when the wise men finally arrived after their trip that would have taken weeks to months to complete. Unfortunately, it seems that the latter is more likely the case because the statement in TJ 2:14 "after they had listened to Herod Antipas, they departed. And behold, the light with the long tail, WHICH THEY HAD OBSERVED IN THE ORIENT, moved ahead of them with a high singing sound until it reached Bethlehem and stood directly over the stable where the infant was born." This statement in the TJ strongly suggests that the TJ's wise men had not seen the light for a long while, not since it had appeared to them in the Orient and began to guide them towards the direction of Jerusalem (the wise men in Matthew also may not have seen the star since they first observed it, but the star in Matthew did not speak to the wise men). Also, the fact that the voice, in TJ 2:4, said "follow the tail of the light" right before stating that this one was already born in is further evidence that this statement was made while the wise men were still in the Orient and not close to the night of J's birth. The voice would not have needed to keep telling the wise men to keep following the tail of the light over the course of their journey, as if they did not know what they were supposed to do otherwise, unless they had a problem with memory loss. This makes the wise men arriving to a "newly born infant" found in a stable, weeks to months after the voice said that the child was already born, very peculiar indeed.

The strangest detail of all is a detail that both Matthew and the TJ record: In both Matthew and the Talmud of Jmmanuel, the king asks the wise men of the time when the light in the sky appeared (MT 2:7/TJ 2:12). In Matthew, since J is not newly born but older, it is very clear why the king asked this question. It was a well-known belief in those days that the advent of a ruler would be signaled by a new star appearing. Whether or not this belief was true at all times does not matter since the king would have likely believed this to be true anyways, which is why he asked the question. The king had already learned about out WHO was born (one who was King of the Jews) and he already learned WHERE he was born (in Bethlehem) and now he was trying to determine WHEN this one was born. If this one was born quite some time ago and was an adult, then King Herod would have felt that his throne was in danger of being overtaken. Both the TJ and Matthew seem to indicate that the king was worried about this. Therefore, when he asked about when the star appeared, he was trying to determine the age of the child because he believed that the star would have appeared on the night that the child was born. After asking when the star appeared, it is assumed that the wise men must have answered him because he then states in Matthew: "Go and search carefully for the YOUNG CHILD." The king uses this same Greek word here which is the only one Matthew uses in his account which is "paidion," meaning young child, not newly born infant. The order is later made by the king in Matthew's account to kill all children under 2 according to the time (of the appearing of the star) which he asked of the wise men. Even though Matthew and the TJ disagree about this event, it can still be used to determine what Matthew was trying to show, that the king believed the star appeared on the night of the child's birth and that the small boy was closer to the age of 2 than being a new born infant according to the time the wise men told him. The king must have known the child was born quite some time ago to have to included the age up to 2 even though he may have over compensated the age in the same way that he over compensated the area where the child was likely located.

One must ask the question: if the Talmud of Jmmanuel is the original document which was distorted, why does it even record the king asking this question in the first place? If he asked it in error because of his notion that it would have appeared on the night of the birth when in reality it began to lead the wise men to the place long before the birth (which would have been necessary in order for the wise men to arrive on the night of the birth from such a great distance which is what they are doing in the TJ, which also makes the statement by the voice of the light very peculiar as already noted), why doesn't the TJ give an explanation for this? Instead, the TJ simply avoids the issue altogether and states that Herod "later directed them to Bethlehem" and then continues to refer to the one as an infant in contrast to Matthew. The king’s question in the TJ of when the star appeared does not let the reader know how old the child was or whether or not his parents would still be in Bethlehem when the wise men searched for him. As found in the TJ, this question of the king is simply a curiosity question and has no importance at all, but this same question in Matthew is very important because it reveals the approximate age of the child that the king knew of when he ordered the young children to be slain. This is true in Matthew because Matthew, unlike the TJ, does NOT have the wise men arriving on the night of the birth, even though the TJ is describing the same scene in a very similar manner as Matthew.

Questions to ponder: What are the odds that Matthew would use a question found in the TJ which, when looking at the TJ alone, serves no purpose and, without changing the question hardly at all, amazingly make the question line up with the generally accepted ancient belief that the advent of a new star signaled the birth of a new king? What are the odds that Matthew and Luke would use this little detail, along with other clever techniques, to create a little chronological conspiracy at the very beginning of the reported events of the life of J? This is what one must conclude if he or she desires to hold that the TJ is the original document that Matthew distorted.

The other option is that the author of the TJ did not understand the purpose of the king’s question when he or she was changing the book of Matthew. One might be led to conclude that the author of the TJ could not have the light appearing on the night of the birth and the wise men arriving to the young child months later because this would contradict the ET capabilities to predict when a child would be born and have a spacecraft begin to lead the way long in advance. Since the author of the TJ desired to make Matthew’s "star" into an alien space craft, the scene then has the wise men coming to the "infant" on the very night of the birth while both Mary and Joseph are still in the stable (as would have been more likely to have occurred in Luke's account of the 3 shepherds, not the 3 wise men). The TJ author simply had to use both “infant” and “young child” in his or her account as well as the tweak the vague Greek word for “dwelling place” into a stable to make the same details of Matthew's visit of the wise men appear to have occurred on the night of the J’s birth, which was the visit of the three shepherds. However, Matthew shows that this "star" appeared on the night of the birth and was the indicator that the wise men would have recognized and have been able to interpret since they were astrologers. They then traveled a long distance and arrived much later than the birth scene.

2. Critical Junction: Matthew 8:14 - Talmud Jmmanuel 8:19
Observe the grand timeline of all chronological events and note what has happened just before this critical point in Matthew. In Matthew 8:5-13, Matthew records the event where a centurion's servant is healed. The Talmud of Jmmanuel follows Matthew with its cognate of this same event in TJ 8:6-18. Notice that this is event number 19 on the timeline. Once we get to Matthew 8:14, however, we see that Matthew has used a time indicator, which is "when J had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever." We can conclude from this statement that J saw Peter's mother-in-law during or shortly after the time that J came into Peter's house as explained before. However, as we also said, the time indicator of "when J had come into Peter's house" does not necessarily mean that J came into Peter's house after J healed the centurion's servant. We must check the grand sequence to determine if Matthew has reverted to a past event in his narrative or not. After checking the grand sequence of all reported events, it can be seen that Matthew is now reporting of an event that happened long before the centurion's servant was ever healed. The time when Peter's mother-in-law was healed appears as event number 6 on the grand timeline. Because Matthew has used a time indicator which allows for reversion to a past event within his narrative, Matthew has not contradicted the timeline and has not placed the seeing of Peter's mother-in-law in an incorrect time period in relation to where the other writers placed the same event on the grand sequence.

The TJ, however, does not have the same time indicating phrase that Matthew has in his narrative. Instead, the TJ says in TJ 8:19 "And Jmmanuel came to Peter's house and saw...." The first part, "and Jmmanuel came" is presented as a subsequent event to the healing of the centurion's servant because "and" implies forward progression in time from the previously reported event. The second part, "and saw..." also implies forward progression in time from J coming into Peter's house. Therefore, these two actions, J coming into Peter's house and J seeing Peter's mother-in-law, are presented as two subsequent and successive events after the previous healing event in the Talmud of Jmmanuel. The TJ, unfortunately, has contradicted the overall timeline of all reported events of the life of J and has placed this event in an incorrect time period as compared to the grand sequence.

A possible reason why the TJ has contradicted the sequence can be seen if one looks at this section in its entirety. Notice the many time indicators that Matthew uses in this section of his narrative and compare them to the TJ counterparts:

Matthew 8
Verse 1: "WHEN He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him."
Verse 5: Now WHEN Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him,
Verse 14: Now WHEN Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever.
Verse 16: WHEN evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed.
Verse 18: And WHEN Jesus saw great multitudes about Him, He gave a command to depart to the other side.

Talmud of Jmmanuel 8
Verse 1: WHEN he descended from the mountain, many people followed him. [good so far...]
Verse 6: WHEN Jmmanuel went to Capernaum, a centurion walked up to him with a request, saying, [still doing good...]
Verse 19: And Jmmanuel came to Peter's house and saw that his mother-in-law lay sick with a fever. [OOPS!...]
Verse 21: In the evening, however, they brought to him many who were possessed; and he drove out the evil spirits through his word and made all the sick well.
Verse 23: WHEN Jmmanuel saw many people around him, he gave the order to go across to the other shore. [we're okay again...]

Notice that the author of the TJ, when changing the book of Matthew, possibly felt that all of these time indicating phrases in Matthew were too redundant and so, perhaps, the TJ author decided to make some changes just to avoid too much redundancy. In doing so, unfortunately, the TJ author has revealed that he or she had no idea how vital these time indicators were and has revealed that he or she did not know that the events in Matthew were not being reported in chronological order in this section. This forces one to have to believe that Matthew "tweaked" the TJ's non-time indicating phrase into a time indicating phrase and that a masterful chronological conspiracy arose which took advantage of Matthew's little time indicator here if one desires to believe that the TJ was the original text that the gospel writers changed and that the TJ contains all truth.

Questions to ponder: What are the odds that Matthew would simply take a phrase which implies forward progression in time and change it into a time indicating phrase that would masterfully be used by both Mark and Luke to place an event that originally happened after the centurion's servant was healed (on J's third trip to Capernaum after the four were called) into a much earlier time period (on J's first trip to Capernaum after the four were called)? Let each have an answer to this question (as well as the previous question) and combine this answer with answers to questions that follow as we progress forward.

5. MAJOR CRITICAL JUNCTION: Matthew 9:36 - Talmud Jmmanuel 9:44
In looking at the grand timeline of all chronological events, it is important to note what has happened just before this critical point in Matthew. In Matthew 9:18-26, Matthew records the event where Jairus's daughter is healed. The Talmud of Jmmanuel follows Matthew with its cognate of this event in TJ 9:20-28. Notice that this is event number 32 on the timeline. Then, in Matthew 9:27-31, Matthew records the event where the two blind men receive their sight. The Talmud of Jmmanuel follows Matthew with its cognate of this event in TJ 9:29-34. Notice that this event falls next in chronological sequence, being number 33 on the timeline. Then, in Matthew 9:32-35, Matthew records the event where the mute demoniac is healed. The Talmud of Jmmanuel follows Matthew with its cognate of this event in TJ 9:35-43. Notice that this event also falls next in chronological sequence, being number 34 on the time line. Once we get to Matthew chapter 9:36 (TJ 9:44), however, we see that Matthew has intentionally skipped over an event that occurred next in the chronological sequence. We know that this skip was intentional because he records this event later, showing that he knew of its occurrence. As we will also see later, this skip and its later placement was also intentional because the rejection by Nazareth, J's own country, was a pinnacle event that concludes Matthew's pictorial narrative of events that begins in chapter 5 and ends by Matthew chapter 14 and verse 1. (Thus, Matthew had a very specific reason for rearranging all events in these chapters out of chronological sequence and sorting them in the manner that he chose, a manner that would not be noticed by a hoaxer who knows little about the events of the Bible.) After skipping over the rejection of Nazareth (being the second time that Nazareth rejected J, Luke recording the first time in Luke 4:16-30), Matthew then records the event where the twelve are sent out, beginning at Matthew chapter 9 and verse 36. Once again, the TJ follows suit with Matthew at TJ 9:44. The question now arises: was this skipping over of the rejection by Nazareth originally caused or known by the author of the TJ and Matthew took this technique for himself?

At this time, it will be stated very clearly and very plainly so that there is no confusion: The record of the twelve being sent out by Matthew begins in Matthew chapter 9 and verse 36 and ends in Matthew chapter 11 and verse 1. The Talmud of Jmmanuel has its own cognate for this entire section, being TJ 9:44-11:1. Thus, all of these verses record the details of event number 36 on our timeline, an event that occurred after Nazareth's second and final rejection of J. From Matthew chapter 11 and verse 2 through Matthew chapter 13 and verse 58, there are NO recorded events that fall next in chronological sequence. In other words, every single detail that is recorded, beginning at Matthew chapter 11 and verse 2 until Matthew chapter 13 and verse 58, explains events that happened BEFORE the twelve were sent out (and before the twelve were even full in number according to the TJ). Again, Matthew has chosen to "sort" his narrative in this manner for a very specific reason which will be explained in full at a later time. It is not until Matthew chapter 14 and verse 1 when Matthew finally resumes chronologically where he left off at Matthew chapter 11 and verse 1. Notice: The Talmud of Jmmanuel has explained events in the exact same order as Matthew, having cognates for almost all of them while including additional events in this section. Did the author of the Talmud of Jmmanuel know that the events were being listed out of chronological order? Let us see…

Matthew 9:36-38 and Talmud Jmmanuel 9:44-46 are clearly cognates. This means that both writers are describing the same event and one author is changing the details of the other author. It is important to note that if the Talmud of Jmmanuel ever does not follow the same path along the timeline that Matthew takes that the TJ will contradict the sequence, and one must believe that there was a very masterful chronological conspiracy created by the 3 synoptic writers if he or she desires to hold that the TJ was the original document that Matthew distorted and that it contains all truth. So let's give the TJ every single possible chance to follow the same paths that Matthew indeed takes to see if the author of the TJ was truly a person who lived at that time and one who walked with J and, therefore, knew that these events were not sorted according to chronological progression. Both MT 9:36-38 and TJ 9:44-46 have already been identified as being cognates, so we are at event number 36 on the timeline. The Talmud of Jmmanuel makes a very bold statement in TJ 9:47, which reads "and so it came to pass that workers for the harvest were found, who gathered around Jmmanuel to become disciples." This phrase can ONLY imply forward progression in time. Thus, the TJ makes a clear statement that at the beginning of event 36, the disciples were not yet 12 in number. In the middle of event number 36, more disciples were found and then, by TJ 10:1, they have now become 12 in number. There is no possible way to conclude anything else by what the TJ says. Now, as we progress, we are going to find it very strange if Judas was not already a disciple long before event 36 so we are going to give the TJ every single possible chance to succeed, even though this is the first time that the TJ presents Judas and it seems he has just become a follower. Nevertheless, we will allow that Judas was following J by the time of the sermon at the mountain. We will see why we are giving the TJ this "chance" later. But there is one thing that we CANNOT do, and that is conclude anything else by what the TJ says other than that at the beginning of event 36, the disciples were not yet twelve in number, and it is at event number 36 that more disciples are found and the total has finally become 12. Notice that Matthew does not suffer from this detail and does not contradict what Mark and Luke recorded, that the disciples were twelve in number at event 16 (20 recorded events before the sending out of the twelve). In Matthew, the 12 are already assumed to have been 12 in number and are simply called together for a specific task, which is "to be sent out," (which is why Matthew uses the word "apostles" in MT 10:2) Now, many have criticized Matthew for not having mentioned the twelve up until this point over the centuries, but, as we shall see, it was also for a very specific reason that Matthew chose not to mention the twelve until this specific point in his pictorial narrative of events. So Matthew does NOT have the 12 finally being complete at this point and allows for the 12 to have been full in number at the sermon at the mountain as Mark and Luke recorded (event 16).

Now, lets acknowledge that MT 9:36-11:1 and TJ 9:44-11:1 are cognates, describing the same event but one author is distorting the details of the other author. We are approaching our next critical junction that occurs at Matthew 11:2. Before we do this, lets make the statement clear again. Matthew chapter 11:1 is the FINAL detail, in chronological sequence, that is recorded by Matthew until Herod the tetrarch hears the report about J in Matthew 14:1/Talmud Jmmanuel 16:1. So Matthew has recorded the sending out of the twelve, which occurred chronologically AFTER Nazareth's second rejection of J, an event that Matthew won't report until MT 13:53-58 for a specific reason, and then has J teaching and preaching in various cities (MT11:1.) The TJ has followed suit with its cognates and, thus, has already accounted for the same exact event. After this, while J is teaching and preaching in various cities, Herod hears about J in MT 14:1. None of the gospel writers knew where J was when Herod heard about this but all agree it was after the twelve were sent out while J was teaching and preaching in various cities.

Matthew 11:2- "and when John had heard in prison" is a time indicator, which we have already noted can be used to either progress forward through time or return to a previous time. By reading Matthew alone, we cannot tell, then, when John had heard in prison about J in relation to the former event 36, the sending out of the twelve. We must, therefore, check the grand sequence. In observing the sequence, we see that Matthew's time indicator has caused him to revert back to event number 21, where J allays John's doubts. If Matthew had not used this time indicator and instead said "and" or "then, John heard in prison…" then Matthew would have contradicted the sequence, but he has not. This time indicator, then, is likely intentional, resulting from Matthew being familiar with the chronological order of reported events. In TJ 11:2, we see a similar time indicator, allowing the TJ to be safe with Matthew. Again, if the TJ ever does not follow the same path as Matthew it will contradict the sequence. Let's give the TJ a chance and say that the TJ has also returned to the past event number 21. Now, lets acknowledge again that MT 11:2-30 and TJ 11:2-33 are cognates, describing the same 2 events on the sequence (events 21 and 22) but one author is distorting the details of the other author. Let's also acknowledge that if the TJ has returned to a past event and contains all truth, the disciples are NOT yet 12 in number during this time period in the TJ but easily can be in Matthew since this event has occurred after event 16. We are approaching our next critical junction that occurs at Matthew 12:1.

Matthew 12:1- "at that time" is a very broad and vague transition that can be used to either progress forward or backward in time in relation to the previously recorded event. It does not require that the next recorded event occurred right after the time of the previously recorded event. In regards to the original phrase that is translated here as either "at that time" or "at that season," one Greek scholar writes: "This paragraph begins exactly like Song of Solomon 11:25 with 'at that season,' a general statement with no clear idea of time.... The word kairoß means a definite and particular time, but we cannot fix it." Another scholar writes: "The season of the year when this occurred is determined by the event itself. Ripe corn ears are found in the fields only just before harvest. The barley harvest seems clearly intended here, at the close of our March and beginning of our April. It coincided with the Passover season, as the wheat harvest with Pentecost." Because Matthew uses such a general statement with no clear indication as to when this event happened in relation to the previous event that was recorded, he has not contradicted the grand sequence because the statement allows for either progression or regression through time in relation to the previous section in Matthew's report. Mark and Luke, however, were much more precise than Matthew in their writings, letting us know when this event occurred in relation to the other events.

By reading Matthew alone, we cannot tell, then, when J went through the grain fields or on what particular Sabbath it was. We must, therefore, check the grand sequence. In observing the sequence, we see that Matthew has returned to past event number 13. If Matthew had not used such a broad transition at this point in his narrative and instead had said "and" or "then" or "the next Sabbath," etc., then he would have contradicted the sequence, but he has not. This, then, was likely intentional as well, resulting from Matthew's knowledge that he was not reporting events in chronological order. In TJ 13:1, we see a similar broad transition, allowing the possibility for the TJ to be safe with Matthew. Again, if the TJ ever does not follow the same path as Matthew it will contradict the sequence. Let's give the TJ a chance and say that the TJ has also returned to a past event in its narrative. Notice how far back in time we have gone. The disciples are not yet twelve in number at the time of this event by even Mark or Luke's testimonies for they do not reach the number 12 until event 16. Now, lets acknowledge again that MT 12:1-21 and TJ 13:1-26 are cognates, describing the same 3 events on the sequence (events 13, 14, and 15) but one author is distorting the details of the other author. Let's also acknowledge that if the TJ has returned to this same past event, contains all truth, and does NOT have Judas joining the disciples until event number 36, that the TJ's record of the secret trip to Bethlehem with Judas could not possibly have happened, unless they got in a time machine without telling us about it. We already said we were going to give the TJ every possible chance not to contradict the sequence, so we will pretend that Judas was following J by the time of event 13, even though NONE of the gospel writers let us know whether or not he truly was at this very early point in time. The "and it came to pass" of TJ chapter 14 can ONLY imply forward progression in time from the previously recorded event. Therefore, we must say that the secret trip to Bethlehem occurred between events 15 and 28 if we are still going to give the TJ a chance to succeed. We MUST, however, say that the disciples were not yet twelve in number at the time of this secret trip to Bethlehem if the TJ is not to contradict the sequence, having them 12 in number at event 36. Since the TJ does not state the number in TJ 14:1, we will allow this and proceed to the next critical junction.

It is important to note the events that are not found in the TJ but are found in Matthew which lead us to the next critical point. Matthew 12:22-50 describe events 25, 26, and 27. In Matthew 13:1, we have the phrase "on the same day" where J leaves the house that he had entered, verified to have occurred by Mark 3:19, and which all 3 gospel writers agreed was located right next to the Sea of Galilee to begin the teaching in parables. In the TJ, we have "on the same day" Jmmanuel walking an amazing 70 miles to the Sea of Galilee from a place near Bethlehem unless we want to say that the master conspiracy also moved the "sea" location from the Dead Sea to the Sea of Galilee. But since some do not wish to take "the same day" literally for whatever reasons, we will proceed nonetheless. Notice how Mark, when he describes this event 28, shows that the disciples were 12 in number at this point (Mark 4:10). This is fine if Mark and Luke's records were correct when they had the disciples becoming twelve at event 16 and Matthew never contradicts their record, but this is not good for the TJ which does not have them becoming twelve until event 36. Unfortunately, it would seem that the author of the TJ would have agreed that the disciples were 12 in number at this point, even if they were not with J at this time in the TJ narrative because its seems that the TJ has progressed forward in time at every critical junction instead of reporting of past events as Matthew has. Nevertheless, we are still going to give the TJ every possible chance to succeed so we will say that the disciples are still not 12 in number at this time in the TJ. Let us proceed to the final critical junction.

After Matthew finishes describing event number 28, he then proceeds forward to event number 35, the event that falls right before the event that Matthew has already accounted for in MT 9:36-11:1 and the event that the TJ has also already accounted for with its cognates, the great event number 36 where, according to the TJ, the disciples finally became 12 in number. Matthew has finally returned chronologically to where he left off at MT 9:34, after having skipped this event, after moving forward to record event 36 out of chronological order, and then making his returns to prior periods to sort past events in an order that lines up with the purpose of his great pictorial narrative of MT chapter 5 thru Matthew chapter 13 (which shows why Matthew was the one who sorted events in this particular time period out of chronological sequence and side-by-side according to the purpose of creating his pictorial narrative of God's dispensational dealings with mankind, a reason that will never be seen by redaction critics who know nothing of the events of the Bible and who cannot see Matthew's time indicators or transitions which allow reversion at every critical junction point and would rather hold that Matthew and Mark contradict each other chronologically. This is also the reason why it was not Mark who got "tired of rearranging Matthew's events" at the point of Matthew chapter 14 and verse 1 or vice versa). We have reached the pinnacle of Matthew's pictorial narrative. Let us acknowledge that Matthew 13:53-58 and Talmud Jmmanuel 15:66-83 are cognates, describing the same event, but one author is distorting the details of the other author. We have given the Talmud of Jmmanuel every single chance to follow the same path that Matthew has taken and we now arrive here, at event number 35. In the TJ, we are one event away from reaching the time when the disciples finally become 12 in number. Everything is looking great… let's see what happens….

In Matthew 14:1, we have the statement by Matthew "at that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report about Jesus." Matthew is picking up chronologically where he left off at Matthew 11:1. Notice how Matthew is using the same broad transition here that he used in Matthew 12:1 so we have no idea how to place this event chronologically by looking at Matthew alone. This must have been intentional and as a result of a purpose other than listing events in chronological order as well. It is only by checking Mark and Luke that we can now see that Matthew has resumed chronologically from where he left off at Matthew 11:1, which we have already seen that the TJ has its respective cognates to match that section, thus having already accounted for it along with Matthew. So here we are, in Matthew, J has been rejected by Nazareth (event 35). He then leaves Nazareth, never to return again according to all 3 synoptic writers. Next, he sends out the twelve, which have just reached their full numbers in the TJ (event 36). In Mark 6:6, we have J going about from village to village after having been rejected by Nazareth for the second time. We do not, therefore, know where J was during and after the time that the 12 were called together and sent out. In Matthew 11:1, we have J continuing to go about from city to city, teaching and preaching, after the twelve have been sent out, setting a good example for his disciples to follow. In Luke, we have further confirmation of the disciples departing from J and going about from city to city before Herod hears about J. All 3 writers record these details, not knowing where J was at this time, and all record this as happening BEFORE event 37, the time when Herod HEARS about J. This is remarkable agreement between all 3 of the synoptic writers. Let's see how the TJ is doing….

The TJ 16:1 reads, "At the time when Jmmanuel was staying in Nazareth, news about him reached Herodes." Uh oh… we definitely have a statement here which stands as a cognate to Matthew's chapter 14 and verse 1 so somebody is copying off of the other and changing things a little bit. Unfortunately, we do not have the same leeway with the TJ's time indicator here that we had with Matthew. Matthew simply said "at that time" which we have already seen that the original Greek meaning of this phrase is so broad that we need the grand sequence to determine when this occurred. But the TJ has added some little, but devastating, additional details. This time indicator is not at all broad or general. This is VERY specific. There is no reason to assume anything else by this statement other than that the time when Herod HEARD about J was during event number 35 because this time indicator makes a very SPECIFIC reference to the event that has just been recorded. But wait a minute… what have we just come to here?... The Talmud of Jmmanuel said that the disciples finally reached their full numbers during event number 36 and then were sent out. But the Talmud of Jmmanuel has Herod HEARING about J during its cognate of event number 35, the short stay in Nazareth before the twelve were sent out.

Mark could not have been clearer when he recorded that King Herod heard about J after J sent out the twelve disciples. In fact, it would seem that Herod hearing about J was a direct result of having sent out the twelve disciples for there is no other event recorded between the sending out of the twelve and Herod hearing about J by ANY writer, the author of the TJ being included, for all of the TJ's cognates have been exhausted and the TJ has allowed absolutely NO room for any of its other reported events to fit between J being at Nazareth and Herod hearing about J because, in the TJ, Herod hears about J WHILE he is still in Nazareth (event 35.) Luke also agrees with this, recording Herod hearing about J after the twelve were sent out and recording nothing else in between. Matthew, through his extensive use of time indicators and broad transitions has allowed himself to come back to this period of time without making any statements that have contradicted the records of Mark and Luke. But the Talmud of Jmmanuel, in recording the events in the EXACT SAME ORDER as Matthew, has left behind an irreconcilable contradiction between all respective accounts on this simple little detail as to WHEN Herod heard about J.

Unfortunately for the TJ, it would seem that the TJ agrees with all 3 synoptic writers on the matter of Herod hearing about J AFTER the twelve were sent out. Sadly, as a result of two little statements that are nowhere to be found in Matthew: "and so it came to pass that workers for the harvest were found, who gathered around Jmmanuel to become disciples" (TJ 9:47) in the record of event 36 and "at the time when Jmmanuel was staying in Nazareth, news about him reached Herodes" (TJ 16:1), referring to event 35, the author of the TJ has left behind evidence that he or she believed that all of the events recorded between these sections in Matthew's narrative were presented in chronological order, the TJ placing the short stay in Nazareth in a very improper time period when compared to the grand sequence. Thus, in the TJ, Herod hears of J a very long time after the twelve were sent out as opposed to shortly after the twelve were sent out by the synoptic writers because all of Matthew's past events contained in this whole section are presented as subsequent and successive events beyond the sending out of the twelve by the author of the TJ, instead of as reversions to previous time periods. There is no possible way to have Herod hearing about J before the twelve were sent out by any single writer, including the writer of the Talmud of Jmmanuel, unless somebody got in a time machine.

Summary of Analysis:
The TJ has contradicted the placement of the event of Nazareth's second rejection of J in relation to the grand sequence, placing it many events after the twelve were sent out, and also says that Herod HEARD of J during this short stay in Nazareth. The grand sequence places the rejection of Nazareth BEFORE the twelve were sent out. Matthew does not contradict the sequence even though he REPORTS of the event after he reports the twelve being sent out since he never uses language to show that he necessarily progressed beyond the time period of the twelve being sent out in the first place. All gospel writers, therefore, have Herod hearing of J after the twelve were sent out which, itself, was after J's short stay in Nazareth. The TJ also has Herod hearing of J after the twelve were sent out but, at the same time, DURING the short stay in Nazareth (which happened before the twelve were sent out according to the grand sequence). Therefore, NONE of the writers, including the TJ writer, have Herod hearing of J before the twelve were sent out. However, since the TJ has Herod hearing of J also during the short stay in Nazareth as well as after the twelve were sent out, it shows that the TJ author believed that the short stay in Nazareth occurred chronologically after the twelve were sent out because Matthew reported it in that order, the grand sequence showing that it occurred before. The TJ has reported the event in the same order that Matthew reported the event and has not allowed for the idea that Herod heard of J before the twelve were sent out. Matthew has allowed for the fact that he was still reporting details concerning a prior time period that occurred before the twelve were sent out because of the language that he used, wheras the TJ has progressed beyond the time period as a result of the little but devastating extra details found in its report but not Matthew's.

Analysis of All Critical Junctions in this Section:

In looking at the entire sequence that began in Matthew chapter 9 and verse 36 and proceeded the entire way to Matthew chapter 14 and verse 1, we have found that even if we dragged the TJ through each critical junction as if it was reporting of events that had happened chronologically prior to the sending out of the 12 (and the completion of the 12 finally being reached according to the TJ) but at later times in its narrative as Matthew has, there was still no possible way to have the TJ avoid contradicting the grand timeline of all reported events when it came to Herod hearing of J. Since the TJ, even after being given every possible chance to succeed, has still revealed that it's author has caused an irreconcilable contradiction of the grand sequence, seeming to show that its author was not one who walked with J, talked with J, and therefore, was not competent in reporting the events correctly, there is no good reason to assume that the TJ EVER reverts to a past event in its narrative in the first place at any critical junction. Additional details found in the TJ itself allow us to come to this conclusion as well. Let's now look at each critical junction that was contained in this section and see the errors of the TJ narrative.

6. Critical Junction: Matthew 11:2-Talmud of Jmmanuel 11:2
(to be continued)

7. Critical Junction: Matthew 12:1-Talmud of Jmmanuel 13:1
It has already been shown that Matthew used a very broad transition that does not allow us to place the location in time of the plucking of the grain on the Sabbath day in relation to other reported events by Matthew in this section of his narrative. After checking the grand timeline, one can see that Matthew has reverted back to a past event when the grain was plucked on the Sabbath (event 13), a time before the TJ and all other gospel writers reveal whether or not that Judas was even following J. The TJ, however, even though it uses the same broad transition as Matthew, seems to be placing this event in a chronological time period that occurred AFTER the twelve were sent out. This likely occurred because the author of the TJ assumed that this event occurred after the sending out of the twelve, in the same manner that many critics assume such when accusing Matthew and Mark of contradicting each other chronologically, when the author of the TJ noticed that Matthew reported the event after the sending out of the twelve and did not understand the purpose of Matthew's vague transition between the events. Further reasons which support why the author of the TJ believed that this event occurred chronologically after the sending out of the twelve is because Judas, in the TJ, is first described in TJ 10:4 as "the only one, other than Jmmanuel, who understood handwriting," and not as one who had been writing or following J for any length of time. It seems, if one is only looking at the TJ, that Judas has just appeared on the scene shortly after the TJ says in TJ 9:47 "And so it came to pass that workers for the harvest were found, who gathered around Jmmanuel to become disciples." Since Judas seems to appear for the first time in the story at this point, he is able to record J's teachings from this point on. However, he is immediately sent out to the villages so he won't be able to write anything down until he returns to J. From the gospel writers, we do know that Judas had been a part of the disciples since the completion of their numbers at the mountain (event 16 on the grand timeline) when the Beatitudes were given and so no more had to be found at event number 36 to bring the number to twelve, but this is denied by the TJ and those who support it.

Since Judas, in the TJ, just seems to have joined the disciples, then, right before the twelve were sent out, it does not matter whether the next reported events in TJ 11:2-TJ 12:35 reverted to prior time periods or not. Nevertheless, in looking at the TJ alone, it seems that TJ 11:2-TJ 12:35 occurred WHILE the 12 were still going about from city to city and J then goes about by himself, even though Matthew began to report of past event number 21 in relation to the sending out of the twelve (event 36) on the grand timeline beginning at Matthew 11:2. We can use the timeline to know where Matthew is in his narrative since he never contradicts it and seems to know about it, but we cannot use the timeline to help the TJ who contradicts it on many occasions. The TJ followed suit with its cognate of TJ 11:2, more likely progressing forward in time, placing the event of J allaying John's doubts (event 21) in an improper time period after the twelve had been sent out (event 36) instead of reporting a past event that happened before the twelve were sent out as Matthew has. Once we get to TJ 13:1, however, where the TJ's cognate for the same event that is reported in Matthew 12:1, an event that occurred chronologically at event number 13 on the grand sequence, a time before the TJ and all other gospel writers reveal whether or not that Judas was even following J and a time before even Mark and Luke say that the disciples were 12 in number, we now reach a crucial moment.

It seems that, in the TJ, ALL 12 disciples have since come back to Jmmanuel after having been sent out and are now walking through the field of grain during the TJ's cognate of Matthew's event number 13 (where the disciples were not 12 in number by Mark or Luke's testimonies). The reason why it is assumed that ALL 12 disciples are here in the TJ but not in Matthew, even though both mention just "the disciples" in their accounts and not their total numbers, is because: 1. The TJ never makes any indication that its author knew of the grand timeline of events in the first place so we can't just baselessly give it credit, and 2. This then gives Judas, who has just appeared on the scene for the first time in TJ chapter 10, before the twelve were sent out, opportunity to write some of the teachings of J down after having been sent out to various cities and finally returning to J at some unstated time before they all walk through the grain fields. The further phrase "It came to pass that Jmmanuel and his disciples went to Bethlehem" of TJ chapter 14 and verse 1, the section in the TJ that comes right after the Sabbath event, allows an even LONGER length of time in the TJ between Judas being able to write the teachings of J down after the 12 return to J, the 12 being able to "walk through the grain fields (AFTER the 12 had been sent out by the TJ)," and the time reported in TJ 14:8 where "at the same time (during the time of the "secret trip to Bethlehem") it transpired that the writings, in which Judas Iscariot had reported on the teachings of Jmmanuel, were stolen from him." Again, if one just reads the TJ, it is assumed that the disciples are twelve in number and, after having returned to J after being sent out, all twelve then go to Bethlehem during this section of the TJ. Unfortunately, we have already seen that in order for the TJ to have succeeded in not contradicting the sequence, this secret trip had to have occurred after event 15 but before event 28 since the TJ's cognates stand parallel to and are reported in the exact same order as Matthew's reports of those past events. The TJ, unfortunately, does not have the disciples becoming twelve in number until its cognate of event 36. Therefore, the author of the TJ, when looking at the event where the disciples were walking through the grain fields on the Sabbath day has, once again, assumed that this event which stands as a direct cognate to Matthew's event, showing that one was copying off of the other while changing things a bit, occurred chronologically AFTER the twelve were sent out and that all 12 disciples were with J during this cognate of a very early time (event 13) on the grand timeline of all reported events. This likely occurred because when he or she was looking at the book of Matthew, the author of the TJ saw that Matthew reported this event after reporting that the twelve had been sent out and so assumed that it occurred at a later chronological time in relation to the sending out of the twelve as many chronological critics do. The author of the TJ has, unfortunately, improperly used this event to allow for time to have passed between the sending out of the twelve and their alleged return to J after having been sent out but before walking through the fields on the Sabbath (which does not occur in Matthew since Matthew is simply reporting an event that happened before the 12 were sent out and before the disciples were 12 in number by anybody's testimonies according to his specific purpose), and its inserted events of Judas writing the teachings of J down on paper, the twelve disciples then making a secret trip to Bethlehem with J, followed by Judas's alleged document being stolen during the inserted "secret trip to Bethlehem." Little did the author of the TJ know that all of Matthew's cognates for this section were reports of events that happened BEFORE the twelve were sent out. The author of the TJ, therefore, has revealed that he or she believed that the plucking of the grains on the Sabbath day occurred chronologically at a time AFTER the twelve were sent out instead of noticing that Matthew was reporting an earlier event, which occurred even before the disciples were 12 in number by Mark and Luke's testimonies, during a time in Matthew's narrative that happens to be reported after his report of the twelve being sent out. Therefore, the TJ has improperly placed the plucking of the grain on the Sabbath day event at a chronological time period occurring after the twelve were sent out even though it has reported of it in the exact same order that Matthew has. It is impossible to conclude anything else if one only looks at the TJ, which is what one must do in order to conclude that the TJ is the true original and all others are liars.

8. Critical Junction: Matthew 13:1
(to be continued)

9. Critical Junction: Matthew 13:53-58
(to be continued)

10. Critical Junction: Matthew 14:1
(to be continued)

The reader now has three options:
1. Believe that there was a very masterful chronological conspiracy created by the gospel writers where Matthew would keep all events listed in the exact same order as the Talmud of Jmmanuel, events which would just happen to line up quite nicely and serve as pictures of the Bible's revelation of God's dispensational dealings with mankind, and Mark and Luke would then make use of all of the broad transitions and time indicators in the TJ (Matthew having to "tweak" a few of them) to create a sequence that would cleverly cause the TJ to contradict itself on having Herod hear about J for the first time after the twelve were full in number and sent out but yet, at the same time, have Herod hearing about J during a short stay in Nazareth that occurred before the disciples were twelve in number and sent out.
2. Understand that the author of the TJ, by placing two little phrases at unfortunate times, has revealed that he or she did not know that the events of Matthew were not listed in chronological order and did not know Matthew's purpose for sorting the events in the manner that he chose, making all appropriate transitions to do so, when the author of the TJ was changing the book of Matthew.
3. Disregard Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Talmud of Jmmanuel entirely and go about your business.