Mt 22:1-14    ¹And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, ²"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, ³and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come. ⁴Again he sent other servants... ¹¹But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment... ¹³Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness. There men will weep and gnash their teeth.' ¹⁴For many are called, but few are chosen."

TJ    [No cognate]

THE PROBLEMS.  This is the parable of the rejected invitation to the marriage feast, or "Great Supper." Beare (p. 432) found it to be full of incongruities, implying that Jesus would never have so presented it. He reasoned that when the dinner was ready, the king would not have bothered to send out his servants to so inform the guests, and especially not a second time. Also, Beare noted, it becomes ludicrous to think of the king gaining revenge on the murderers of his servants by killing them and then burning down their city, which, it may be deduced, was the king's own city!

The authors of Antioch and Rome also wondered why the writer of Matthew went to the trouble of inserting the "Great Supper" narrative into a parable in which it does not fit.[1] They note that the supper was delayed the entire time that the troops were sent for, went out, and set the town on fire; this would have taken most of a day, if not more.

It's final verse looks like the point that the parable was supposed to make. However, as noted by Beare (p. 437), it is an inappropriate tag line. "The king's slaves have brought in everyone they could find, but only one is cast out." That is, many were chosen, not just a few.

It is further seen that this parable interrupts what would seem to have been a realistic course of events. At the beginning of the parable Jesus had left the chief priests and Pharisees angry and disturbed (Mt 21:46), because they perceived that his immediately preceding talk had been directed against them. Then comes this incongruous parable of the Great Supper, which evidently aroused no reaction worth mentioning from the chief priests and Pharisees. Then (in Mt 22:15) the Pharisees pondered how to trap him in his talk. This would flow logically if the parable of the Great Supper did not intervene.

Perhaps the least of its problems occurs in 22:1 with the plural word "parables." At this point, Jesus speaks only the one parable. He doesn't speak another parable until another chapter and a half.

SOLUTION.  From the TJ viewpoint, this is a lengthy insertion made by the compiler to put across his viewpoint that God is good but is very demanding and will punish even minor offenders without mercy. The insertion interrupts Matthean verses having TJ parallels describing how Pharisees were plotting to arrest the man.

Concerning the hoax hypothesis, the evidence is not as strong one way or another when the TJ has no cognate. Obviously, if the whole TJ had no parallels to any of Matthew, then the absence of any one of Matthew's pericopes would be of no significance whatever (and one would not postulate a dependence between the two documents). However, since the TJ has evident parallels or cognates to approximately 682 of Matthew's 1071 verses, the instances in which it has no parallels do provide evidence of some significance bearing upon which document is primary and which is secondary. Here we have seen much evidence that the Matthean pericope is non-genuine, and so if the TJ had contained it, this would count heavily against the TJ's genuineness, too. The fact that the TJ does not contain it, however, points more towards its genuineness than not, since a hoaxer might have found reason to include a few of the pericope's 14 verses in one form or another: P_Hoax ≈ 0.45.

TJ 23:1    ¹When the Pharisees held counsel on how they could snare Jmmanuel in his speech, they sent their followers to him, including some of Herodes' people.

TJ 23:1    ¹Als die Pharisäer Rat hielten, wie sie Jmmanuel fingen in seiner Rede, sandten sie zu ihm ihre Jünger samt des Herodes Leuten.

THE PROBLEM.  It is a bit peculiar for the term "Herodians" to have been used here without any previous introduction of who they were, as they are referred to as the Herodians in the Greek also. As Beare (p. 438) has noted, "nothing is known about the term apart from its use here" along with its similar use in Mark. The term would more plausibly have been used if its original meaning were already familiar to the writer, as from a source text.

SOLUTION.  This peculiarity may have been introduced by the writer of Matthew because the term's meaning as expressed in the TJ was clear to him and had become familiar. This solution is somewhat more probable than that it would have occurred to a literary hoaxer to make his text in this manner read more like the earliest writing. P_Hoax ≈ 0.45.

The rest of the pericope in Matthew, about whether or not to pay taxes to Caesar, parallels the TJ text quite well. However, the TJ's pericope mentions Creation as well as El and Caesar, and stresses the omnipotence of Creation, to which highest praise is to be given.

Mt 22:29-30    ²⁹But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. ³⁰For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

TJ 23:18-21    ¹⁸Jmmanuel, however, answered, saying, "You are mistaken and do not know the unadulterated scriptures of the elders, nor do you know the laws of Creation. ¹⁹Truly, I say to you, Moses never gave this commandment; but he gave the commandment that a brother should take his brother's wife to himself in honor, so if one died the other would take care of the widow of his brother. ²⁰How is it possible for a brother to beget descendants for his brother, since everyone's seed is different! ²¹In the next incarnation they all will be strangers because they will not recognize each other; therefore, no law says the wife then belongs to this one or that one." TJ 23:18-21    ¹⁸Jmmanuel aber antwortete und sprach: «Ihr irret und kennet nicht die unverfälschten Schriften der Alten, noch kennet ihr die Gesetze der Schöpfung. ¹⁹Wahrlich, ich sage euch: Nie hat Mose gegeben dieses Gebot, so aber das Gebot, dass ein Bruder seines Bruders Weib zu sich nehme in Ehre, so der eine gestorben ist, also er für die Witwe seines Bruders sorge. ²⁰Wie käme es aber, dass ein Bruder seinem Bruder Nachkommen zeugen könnte, da doch der Same eines jeden mit Unterschied ist! ²¹Im Wiederleben werden sie sich alle fremd sein, so sie einander nicht kennen, also auch kein Gesetz besagt, das Weib gehöre nun dem oder dem.»

THE PROBLEMS.  Jesus' response was in answer to a trick question about the afterlife in relation to the Mosaic law for the case of a widow without children becoming married to one of her former husband's six brothers, if they had dwelled together. In the situation posed, each surviving brother successively marries the widow after the previous brother who married her dies, until all are dead; the question then is: Which brother gets the widow as his wife in the afterlife? One problem is that we don't find anywhere in the Scriptures what one's existence as a resurrected entity is like, or what it is not like.

The problem Beare (p. 441) mentioned is that, with Jesus' answer involving angels, it is quite uncertain what ideas Jesus may have had about angels. Since Jesus didn't explain his ideas about them, his questioners could not have been any better informed after his answer than before.

SOLUTION.  In the TJ, the question posed to Jmmanuel by the Sadducees was the same as in Matthew. But here, in the TJ verses, we see that Jmmanuel's answer was severalfold, to cover the several misunderstandings built into the question. The unadulterated Scriptures, which Jmmanuel had been given access to, probably during his 40 days and nights' tutoring by his contacting ETs, evidently did explain things; a brother cannot begat descendants for anyone else; and during their souls' next lifetimes they all will be like strangers (since memories of one's previous lives are normally suppressed). This latter answer is especially informative. Although it may presuppose that persons within a family tend to reincarnate into next-life situations where some of the same souls meet and interact, there is a very strong tendency for this very thing actually to occur, as found by many past-life therapists and researchers.[2]

It is easy to see how the writer of Matthew altered these TJ verses into ones that were compatible with his own beliefs. It is more difficult to visualize a literary hoaxer taking it the other way, with a response that directly answers the question (which in the TJ had been about reincarnation, not resurrection). And since the Matthean verse has no evidence whatsoever to back it up whereas the TJ verse does, and could therefore have been spoken by a wisdom teacher who had learned all about reincarnation during many years spent in India, it is much to be preferred as the original. P_Hoax ≈ 0.2.

TJ 23:22-30     ²²"In each new life the person determines for himself whom he wishes to marry; thus he can marry whoever is not spoken for. ²³Take heed of the laws of Creation, which teach that in a new life people do not remember their former lives. Thus your question is superfluous. ²⁴At this point it is only the prophets who remember former lives, since they follow the laws of Creation and therefore live in wisdom. ²⁵But since you and the Israelite people will continue to live in piercing darkness for an extended period, cognition and wisdom of the spirit and of the consciousness will remain hidden from you for a long time..." ³⁰When the people heard that, they were aghast and afraid.

TJ 23:22-30     ²²«In jedem Wiederleben bestimmet der Mensch selbst, wen er freien will, so er freien kann, wer nicht vorbestimmt ist. ²³Achtet der Gesetze der Schöpfung, die da lehren, dass der Mensch in einem Wiederleben keine Erinnerung hat an das frühere Leben, so eure Frage dahinfällt also. ²⁴Noch sind es nur die Propheten, die Erinnerung an frühere Leben haben, da sie die Gesetze der Schöpfung befolgen und also in Weisheit leben. ²⁵So ihr und das israelitische Volk aber über lange Zeit werdet in gellender Finsternis leben, soll euch lange verschlossen bleiben die Erkenntnis und die Weisheit des Geistes und des Bewusstseins....» ³⁰Und da solches das Volk hörte, entsetzte es sich und fürchtete sich.

THE PROBLEMS.  Beare (p. 441) noted that the words of verse 32 do not treat resurrection in general. At the most, they could be taken to imply some kind of immortality for just the great Jewish patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The inconsistency is that a God concerned with all of humanity ought to have after-life plans for all of humanity, not for just a select few. In fact, what Jesus spoke was very skimpy in content and ambiguous. This could hardly have elicited the noted astonishment. Instead, they could only have wondered what this statement from Ex 3:6 has to do with resurrection of the dead, and why he implied that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not dead. The crowd would be left shaking their heads in bewilderment, not buzzing with astonishment.

Moreover, Jesus had been speaking to Sadducees, not to a crowd. Where, Beare wondered (p. 442), had the crowds come from? (In the Greek text, the phrase is "the crowds", not "the crowd.")

SOLUTION.  The first two Matthean verses substitute for the TJ verses shown plus four more, following TJ 23:25, which discuss the spiritual poverty within Israel—heretical topics to believers in resurrection. They contain harsh news for those living under the influence of false teachings. Hence, the people, when they heard that, were aghast. The compiler could do little with this material but make a substitution for it.

In so doing, he replaced the TJ's "the people" (German: das Volk) with "the crowds" as was his custom. In this case this particular substitution did not work out well, because "the crowds" implies a large group of people, as gathered together to listen to a speaker, whereas "the people" can imply the common folk scattered around who are informed later through hearsay. Hence in the TJ verse, its use of "when" with "the people" was appropriate, since the people learned of what was said subsequently through word of mouth. The writer of Matthew carelessly carried the TJ's "when" over into his gospel in which he had introduced crowds of listeners along with the Sadducees.

In the TJ, Jmmanuel was evidently speaking in generalities rather than trying to cover various exceptions. That is, a small fraction of very young children, up to the ages of 6 or 7, do at times remember past-life events, this being more likely for children whose most recent past-lives had ended early, often through accident. Also, many adults, who are capable of being brought into a light trance by a hypno-therapist and are interested in recalling some of their past lives, do so.

Again the TJ verse holds meaning and truth that's been validated since the 1970s and could therefore have been original and spoken by a wisdom teacher who knew a lot about reincarnation, past lives and spiritual evolution. On the other hand, one or both of the Matthean problems would not likely have been foreseen by a literary hoaxer. P_Hoax ≈ 0.25.

TJ 23:31-32a    ³¹But when the Pharisees heard that Jmmanuel had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered and deliberated. ³²And one among them, a scribe, tested him by asking,...

TJ 23:31-32a    ³¹Da aber die Pharisäer hörten, dass Jmmanuel den Sadduzäern das Maul gestopft hatte, versammelten sie sich und hielten einen Rat. ³²Und einer unter ihnen, ein Schriftgelehrter, versuchte ihn und fragte: ...

THE PROBLEM.  Among some scholars it is a problem that Matthew mentions a lawyer as being the one who tested Jesus, as does also Luke, whereas in Mark (Mk 12:28) it is a scribe who does so. If the writer of Matthew was copying from Mark, why did he not then use "scribe" rather than "lawyer"? Further, this is the only time the word "lawyer" is used in Matthew.

SOLUTION.  The TJ allows us to see this as another spot where the writer of Matthew refrained from using "scribe" in a situation that would be embarrassing to a former Pharisaic scribe who had converted to early Christianity. That is, the question involved the great importance of the laws from the Torah, and was asked for the diabolic purpose of trying to trip up Jmmanuel. As a former scribe himself, the writer of Matthew could avoid casting this aspersion on one of his own by altering the scribe into a lawyer.

This comparison is included here as one more indication that the TJ is no hoax, as a hoaxer basing his work upon Matthew would not have had any motivation for altering Matthew's "lawyer" into a scribe. P_Hoax ≈ 0.4.

We also see that the writer of Mark, in making small changes for the sake of change, altered Matthew's lawyer into a scribe, thereby accidentally agreeing with the TJ. Among many hundreds of alterations made by the writer of Mark relative to Matthew, it is not surprising to find that a very few of them accidentally yield a minor agreement with the TJ.

Mt 22:36-40    ³⁶"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" ³⁷And he said to them, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ³⁸This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

TJ 23:32-41    ³²And one among them, a scribe, tested him by asking, "Jmmanuel, which is the foremost commandment in the law?" ³³Jmmanuel asked in return, "Whose law are you thinking of, the law of the emperor, or are you thinking of the law of El, or are you thinking of the law of Creation?" ³⁴The scribe said, "I am thinking of the laws of all three." ³⁵But Jmmanuel said, "The highest directive in the law of Creation is this: Achieve the wisdom of knowledge, so that you may wisely follow the laws of Creation. ³⁶But the highest commandment of the law of El is this: You shall honor El as the ruler of the three human species and obey his laws, for he is the king of wisdom of the three human species and a good and just counselor. ³⁷And the highest command of the laws of the emperor is this: You shall be obedient to the emperor, follow his laws and give to him the tithe, because he is the ruler over the people and their guardian and protector. ³⁸These are the foremost and greatest commandments in the laws of the three, as applied to their categories. ³⁹But the other directive, equal to the first, is this: You shall consider only Creation as almighty, for it alone is constant in all things and therein is timeless. ⁴⁰El and the emperor are transitory, but Creation is eternal. ⁴¹Upon these two directives depend the entire law and the prophets."

TJ 23:32-41    ³²Und einer unter ihnen, ein Schriftgelehrter, versuchte ihn und fragte: «Jmmanuel, welches ist denn das vornehmste Gebot im Gesetz?» ³³Er aber sprach und fragte: «An wessen Gesetz denkst du, an das des Kaisers, oder denkst du an das Gesetz Gottes, oder denkst du an das Gesetz der Schöpfung?» ³⁴Der Schriftgelehrte aber sprach: «Ich denke an die Gesetze der drei.» ³⁵Jmmanuel aber sprach: «Das höchste Gebot im Gesetz der Schöpfung ist das: Erringe die Weisheit des Wissens, so du weise die Gesetze der Schöpfung befolgen mögest. ³⁶Das höchste Gebot des Gesetzes Gottes aber ist das: Du sollst Gott als den Herrscher der drei Menschengeschlechter achten und seine Gesetze befolgen, denn er ist der Weisheitskönig der drei Menschengeschlechter und ein guter und gerechter Ratgeber. ³⁷Das höchste Gebot des Kaisers Gesetzes aber ist das: Du sollst dem Kaiser gehorsam sein und seine Gesetze befolgen und ihm den Zehnten geben, denn er ist der Herrscher über das Volk und dessen Hüter und Beschützer. ³⁸Dies sind die vornehmsten und grössten Gebote der Gesetze der drei, bestimmet nach ihrer Art. ³⁹Das andere aber ist das und dem ersten gleich: Du sollst als Allmacht nur die Schöpfung nennen, denn sie allein ist beständig in allen Dingen und darin also zeitlos. ⁴⁰Gott und der Kaiser sind vergänglich, die Schöpfung aber ist unvergänglich. ⁴¹In diesen zwei Geboten hängt das ganze Gesetz und die Propheten.»

THE PROBLEMS.  Earlier, at Mt 19:17-19, Jesus is already on record for having told a young man what commandments he had to obey to have eternal life. He listed six of them, but this "great" commandment, which derives from Dt 6:4-5, is not among them. Now, here it is suddenly mentioned as being the "great and first" commandment. Something is seriously wrong here.

The second of Matthew's two great commandments derives from Lv 19:18. However, here in Matthew "neighbor" is not defined, which means that the commandment itself is not well posed. Just who is your neighbor whom you must love? The Leviticus verse implies that only "the sons of your own people" are your neighbor. This is apparently the sense in which the writer of Matthew himself interpreted it, since several of his own verses indicate that he held no love for gentiles, whom he despised. (However, the writer of Luke fixed this up by including the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in Lk 10:29-37.)

DISCUSSION.  Here in the TJ Jmmanuel spells out the highest commandments or directives of the three different categories, and then gives a second directive equal in importance to the first one, referring back to achieving "the wisdom of knowledge." In the end, his two directives then are to gain the wisdom to follow Creation's laws and to regard Creation as omnipotent. Ideally, El's laws and the emperor's laws would stem from Creation's laws, and thus be consistent with them.

When comparing Matthew against the TJ, we see that it would have been quite feasible for the compiler to remove the heresies from the TJ passage and simplify it, while substituting within it the best of Old Testament wisdom. However, it would require unique motivation and exceptional imagination of a literary hoaxer to start with the first and last verses of Matthew's version and expand or conflate it into the above TJ passage. P_Hoax ≈ 0.15.

In the first Matthean verse, instead of "greatest," "great" is used, which analysts agree is indicative of it having derived from an Aramaic source. In the first TJ verse, however, the corresponding adjective is in the superlative. This, then, is one of many instances in which the TJ's translator opted for correctness in meaning over literalness of translation. As a result, the TJ fails to exhibit the Aramaism.

In TJ 23:39, the word "constant" comes from the German "beständig," the translation of which could also be given by "enduring" or "perpetual."

TJ 23:50-51     ⁵⁰Since the Pharisees were together, Jmmanuel asked them, "What do you think about me, whose son am I?" ⁵¹They said, "The son of David."

TJ 23:50-51     ⁵⁰Da nun die Pharisäer beieinander waren, fragte sie Jmmanuel und sprach: «Was denkt ihr von mir, wessen Sohn ich sei?» ⁵¹Sie sprachen: «Davids Sohn.»

THE PROBLEM.  It makes no sense that Jesus would have expected the Pharisees to identify him as the Christ or Messiah. He should know that they, especially, in wishing to kill him, did not view him as such. And according to Mt 16:20 the disciples were to tell no one that he was the Christ. Most important, with the name "Jesus" he would not be identified by the Pharisees as the messianic figure of Isaiah 7, since his name would have had to be Immanuel before he could qualify for that.

Further reason for treating "the Christ" here as an anachronism is discussed under Mt 23:10.

SOLUTION.  This was another instance wherein the writer of Matthew inserted "the Christ" or "the Messiah" into his extraction from the TJ, in accordance with Christian belief. Doing this, along with having altered his name from Immanuel to Jesus throughout, caused the problem.

It is interesting that the Pharisees utilized the "son of David" phrase in answering Jmmanuel's question. This supports what the TJ indicated in its chapter 2, repeated in Luke, that Joseph with Mary had gone to Bethlehem because he was of the house of David, and that Jmmanuel was indeed born there. And as noted, it is consistent with his name having been Immanuel, not "Jesus" or "Yeshua."

In calling him by the abbreviated title "son of David," standing for "descendant of David," the Pharisees were apparently using the language of those schooled in the Scriptures where, for example, we see "sons of Levi" referring to descendants of Levi.

Jmmanuel evidently did not mind reproving the Pharisees (see below) for calling him the son of David, since he had asked whose "son" was he, not whose "descendant." Nowhere else in the TJ was he called the son of David, and so Jmmanuel had no need to correct any others on this point.

Since the TJ does not suffer from the problem, which is one that would be caused by a Christian redactor's touch, the edge must go to the TJ here. P_Hoax ≈ 0.45.

TJ 23:52-56    ⁵²But he spoke to them, "How can I be the son of David, when he has been dead for a long time and I was begotten by Gabriel, the guardian angel? ⁵³And haven't you read that David called me lord when he said, ⁵⁴'The LORD said to my lord, "Sit down at my right side, until I can place your enemies beneath your feet, because you are my foster son and my successor."' ⁵⁵Since David calls me lord, how can I be his son?" ⁵⁶And no one could give him an answer, but secretly they said, "He blasphemes God and the prophets. Let's try to catch and kill him, because he endangers our position in that we will no longer be respected by the people."

TJ 23:52-56    ⁵²Er aber sprach zu ihnen: «Wie kann ich Davids Sohn sein, wenn er schon lange Zeit tot ist und ich gezeuget bin vom Wächterengel Gabriel? ⁵³Und habt ihr denn nicht gelesen, dass mich David einen Herrn nannte, als er sagte: ⁵⁴‹Der Herr hat gesagt zu meinem Herrn: ‘Setze dich zu meiner Rechten, bis dass ich lege deine Feinde unter deine Füsse, denn du bist mein Ziehsohn und mein Nachfolger’›. ⁵⁵So nun David mich seinen Herrn nennt, wie bin ich denn sein Sohn?» ⁵⁶Und niemand konnte ihm ein Wort antworten, so sie heimlich aber sprachen: «Er lästert Gott und die Propheten; trachten wir, ihn zu fangen und zu töten, denn er bringt auch unsern Stand in Gefahr, so wir vor dem Volk nichts mehr gelten werden.»

THE PROBLEMS.  Beare (pp. 444-445) found problems with both Mt 22:43 and 22:46. With the first of these, he pointed out that "inspired by the spirit" or "in the spirit" (which is the translation he preferred from the Greek) is a Christian phrase. So it would not likely have been uttered by Jesus years before Christianity had commenced as a religion.

With Mt 22:46 the objection is more obvious. It is well known that the last clause, about not any one daring to ask Jesus another question from then on, is not true. The disciples come and question him in Mt 24:3; they question him again in 26:8; in Mt 26:25 we read that Judas asks Jesus "Is it I, Master?" In Mt 26:62 the high priest asks him two questions; in 27:11 Pilate asks him if he is the King of the Jews, plus a further question. This "not any one" should have been qualified to refer only to Pharisees.

SOLUTION.  The TJ verses, to which neither of Beare's objections applies, were the source of the Matthean verses. The first TJ verse (TJ 23:52) is easily understandable: Jmmanuel was showing how absurd it was to think he was the son of David—with "son" interpreted in its usual straight-forward meaning. Presumably the Pharisees knew that Immanuel was a descendant of the House of David, but they apparently did not wish to treat him as if he were the Wonderful Counselor of Isaiah 9 or as the "son of man" and "anointed one" of Daniel 7 and 9.

However, the remainder of the TJ passage may seem as enigmatic as Matthew's version. Although a Christian may assume that in Psalm 110 David was writing about God speaking to the Messiah (Jesus), this is not at all convincing since God was speaking in the present tense, whereas Jesus would not be incarnated for many centuries to come. The interpretation I presently favor starts out a bit like the Christian interpretation, but soon diverges: in the TJ's citation from David, "my lord" referred not only to Immanuel, but also to Immanuel's spiritual lineage going back to Henoch (Enoch) and before, with "the LORD" referring to El the ET. But how could David know about this spiritual lineage and the incarnation of Immanuel to come in his distant future? The most evident solution to this is that he knew it from the teachings and writings of Enoch which, after all, did survive seven and more centuries after David's time to make it into the book now called 1 Enoch. There, much is written about "the Elect One," or "the Righteous One," to come in the far away future. This one was Immanuel, whose spirit form was the same as that of Enoch, Isaiah, Elijah and Jeremiah according to what Meier learned from his ET contactors and from material in the OM, Kanon 20. The assumption is that David knew of this ancient teaching from Henoch, preserved from the OM in oral tradition if not in writing, though not contained in 1 Enoch, which is a pale abbreviation of the OM. In that manner Jmmanuel could say, "David called me lord," with "me" referring to the residing spirit of that line of great prophets as well as to himself, and David could speak of that spirit-form as "his lord" in the present tense.

Then, "foster-son" represents this spirit-form whenever incarnated as one of the prophets, whom the long-lived El treated rather like a son, during each of their various incarnations, in their life's missions. Finally, I would translate "successor" in TJ 23:54 as meaning that after the UFO coverup has become unraveled and the Pleiadians/Plejarens (and El) no longer are needed as spiritual watchers and caretakers, a future incarnation of Jmmanuel would take over from the Pleiadians in providing spiritual information to help guide Earthlings. But this is more conjecture.

This TJ verse is another example of Jmmanuel seemingly having been informed on what the Scripture writers originally wrote or taught, which differed significantly in places from the present biblical version that has been preserved.

We notice that Mt 22:46b appears in substitution for TJ 23:56b. This appears to be the spot where the writer of Matthew first starting omitting the Pharisees from all involvement in the plot to arrest Jmmanuel and have him be killed.

Those who favor the hoax hypothesis may be able to point to almost as many problems with interpreting the TJ in this passage as there are with the Matthean verses. P_Hoax ≈ 0.5.

However, upon accumulating the individual probabilities against the hoax hypothesis from the verse comparisons of all of Mt 22 versus TJ 23 we find the summary probability for hoax here to be 0.0053.

1. R. E. Brown and J. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), p. 16, footnote 4.

2. E.g., see Woolger, Roger J., Other Lives, Other Selves (New York: Bantam Books, 1988) pp. 220-227; Rieder, Marge, Mission to Millboro (Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin Publishing Co., 1993); Newton, Michael, Destiny of Souls (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 2000); Bowman, Carol, Return from Heaven (New York: HarperCollins, 2001).