# 2026 Addendum: Matthew 4 and TJ 4

**Part 1: Matthew 4:1–11 compared with Talmud Jmmanuel 4:1–51**  
**Part 2: Matthew 4:12–24 compared with Talmud Jmmanuel 4:52–62, with Matthew 4:25 included for the closing parallel**  
**Date:** 5 October 2026  
**Principal critical source:** Francis Wright Beare, *The Gospel according to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary*, pp. 104–122; p. 88 for the Baptist's proclamation.  
**Authorship:** Codex, an AI research assistant, working with the site's researcher. This 2026 Addendum is separate from Prof. James W. Deardorff's original research.  
**Purpose:** Develop and test the TJ-first explanation by applying independently documented criticisms of Matthew to the corresponding TJ material and to the chapter as a whole.

[Read Matthew 4](../../mt/mt4.htm) · [Read TJ 4](../../tj/tj4.htm) · [Deardorff's original comparison](../mt4.htm) · [Chapter comparison summary](../comparison/mt4.htm) · [HTML edition](2026-mt4-tj4.htm)

## Summary of findings

**The strongest case in this chapter concerns continuity: TJ explains the preparation, the return journey, and the teaching mission as successive parts of one story.** Several details that make that sequence intelligible are absent from Matthew. Beare independently identifies significant difficulties at precisely some of those locations.

The two accounts begin with a forty-day absence after the baptism and end with a Galilean teaching and healing ministry. Between those points, they give substantially different explanations. Matthew describes a confrontation with the devil; TJ describes instruction by celestial beings, followed by a return to Galilee.

1. **TJ avoids the impossible mountain viewpoint.** Beare observes that no mountain permits a view of all the world's kingdoms. TJ describes three viewing portals, including one that reveals interiors in Israel. The view is mediated through the portals rather than obtained by climbing high enough. This answers the particular line-of-sight problem within TJ's account, while the existence of the apparatus remains a separate historical question. *(Beare, pp. 104–105; TJ 4:11–19.)*

2. **TJ gives the journey a consistent purpose and identifiable participants.** Its celestial beings transport, instruct, commission, and return Jmmanuel. Matthew distributes the action among the Spirit, the devil, and finally angels. Beare specifically questions the devil's power to transport Jesus and treats the exchanges as a literary debate. Under TJ priority, a positive instruction narrative has been replaced by an adversarial test of obedience. *(Beare, pp. 105, 107, 110–111; TJ 4:2–10, 33–51.)*

3. **TJ supplies the return that Matthew leaves unstated.** Beare calls Matthew's connection between the temptation and the return to Galilee exceptionally loose. TJ 4:51 explicitly returns Jmmanuel to Galilee; 4:52 then places his departure from Nazareth after news of John's imprisonment. This is the most exact match between an independently identified narrative gap and a particular TJ sentence. *(Beare, pp. 105, 114.)*

4. **TJ's forty days prepare the work that follows.** He receives knowledge, is warned against abusing his power, is assigned a teaching mission, then preaches knowledge and offers to teach his followers. Matthew's forty days instead demonstrate obedience through a series of scriptural tests. TJ therefore has a sustained learn–teach–practise sequence extending across both parts of the chapter. *(TJ 4:4–9, 33–36, 45–46, 53, 55, 60.)*

5. **TJ avoids Matthew's particular use of Isaiah as a fulfilment claim.** Beare argues that Matthew transfers an oracle about deliverance from Assyrian domination into the setting of Jesus' ministry. TJ proceeds from relocation to preaching without that quotation. Its narrative does not depend on treating that older oracle as a prediction fulfilled by the move. TJ does, however, retain the same Zebulun–Naphtali geographical wording; that separate difficulty survives. *(Beare, pp. 115–116; TJ 4:52–53.)*

6. **TJ gives the invitation to the fishermen an explicit educational purpose.** The promise to teach knowledge states what joining Jmmanuel involves and connects their recruitment with his own preparation. This improves the explanation of the invitation. It does not supply the prior acquaintance, deliberation, or practical arrangements missing from both accounts of the fishermen's immediate departure. *(Beare, pp. 117–118; TJ 4:54–59.)*

7. **The whole-chapter comparison separates real improvements from shared features.** Both texts retain the abrupt second call, the expression “their synagogues,” sweeping healing language, Syrian fame, and a geographically extensive following. Those cannot be counted as problems that disappear in TJ. The useful case rests on the specific connections TJ supplies, especially the return journey and the repeated teaching purpose.

**The resulting TJ-first argument is substantial but specific:** Matthew can be read as replacing a preparation through instruction with a scriptural demonstration of the Son's obedience, while abbreviating the travel transition and redirecting the language of the public mission. This explains an intelligible pattern of differences. It does not require every sentence in Matthew to be defective or every sentence in TJ to settle an historical question.

## 1. Scope, sources, and method

The working premise is **TJ → Matthew**. For each proposed advantage, this study asks four questions: What exactly did a scholar find problematic in Matthew? Does TJ retain the same feature? Does TJ supply an actual answer, or merely omit the episode? What change from TJ to Matthew would produce the observed difference?

Three kinds of result are distinguished throughout:

- **Direct answer:** TJ supplies the missing connection or avoids the precise mechanism criticised.
- **Partial answer or alternative:** TJ improves an explanation, or gives a different kind of story, while some of the original question remains.
- **Shared question:** the criticised wording or narrative behaviour also occurs in TJ.

Beare's commentary is the main source of independently formulated objections. His proposed use of Mark and other traditions belongs to his own source theory; it is not silently converted into an endorsement of TJ. William Loader, Francois P. Viljoen, and In Cheol Shin provide additional scholarly analyses of Matthew's literary construction. Their interpretations help identify what Matthew's text is doing, even where they regard that construction as purposeful rather than defective. None of these scholars is cited as endorsing TJ priority. [B1](#source-b1) [S1](#source-s1) [S2](#source-s2) [S3](#source-s3)

The base texts are the site's RSV Matthew and its current TJ chapter pages. TJ's “god” is retained when discussing its wording; the chapter distinguishes that being from Creation and identifies Gabriel as Jmmanuel's father. This distinction is central to the comparison, not a spelling detail.

**The requested boundary needs one clarification.** TJ 4:62 corresponds to Matthew 4:25, not 4:24. The main second part follows the requested range, then includes 4:25 so the chapter's final sentence receives its proper comparison. TJ 3:30–34 and Matthew 3:16–17 provide only the necessary entry context.

### Coverage map

| Narrative unit | Matthew | TJ | Nature of correspondence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Departure after baptism; forty-day interval | 4:1–2; context 3:16–17 | 4:1–10; context 3:30–34 | Shared position and duration; different purpose and agency |
| Stones and bread | 4:3–4 | No direct episode | Compare with the instruction and use-of-power theme, without inventing a matching verse |
| Temple leap and protective angels | 4:5–7 | No direct episode | TJ retains celestial assistance, but no temple test |
| World view and authority | 4:8–10 | 4:11–21, 33–46 | Viewing and authority motifs; different objects, means, and application |
| Palace, celestial teachers, human origins, and future mission | No extended counterpart | 4:20–50 | TJ-specific material requiring its own scrutiny |
| Angelic service; departure and return | 4:11–12 | 4:51–52 | Particularly important transition across the two parts |
| Relocation and Isaiah | 4:12–16 | 4:52 | Shared relocation and tribal names; no TJ fulfilment quotation |
| Opening proclamation | 4:17 | 4:53 | Different stated objective |
| Two pairs of fishermen | 4:18–22 | 4:54–59 | Close narrative correspondence; extra teaching promise in TJ |
| Teaching, healing, Syrian fame | 4:23–24 | 4:60–61 | Close correspondence, with a changed description of the teaching |
| Regional following | 4:25 | 4:62 | Closing parallel included for completeness |

## Part 1: Matthew 4:1–11 and TJ 4:1–51

### 2. What kind of forty-day event is being described?

**Scholarly starting point.** Beare reads Matthew 4:1–11 as a constructed dramatic debate rather than a transcript of an encounter. The locations function as settings for three exchanges. He especially questions the literal mountain view and the successive transportation of Jesus by Satan. On pp. 109–113 he shows how the answers draw upon the account of Israel's testing in Deuteronomy. [B1](#source-b1)

The scriptural sequence is concrete:

| Matthew's scene | Scriptural material | Function within the scene |
|---|---|---|
| Hunger and the proposal to make bread, 4:3–4 | Deuteronomy 8:3 | Answer hunger through obedience to God's word |
| Leap from the temple, 4:5–7 | Psalm 91:11–12 and Deuteronomy 6:16 | Distinguish trust in protection from putting God to the test |
| Offer of the kingdoms, 4:8–10 | Deuteronomy 6:13, with adapted wording | Refuse worship of another power |

Loader likewise identifies the wilderness testing as part of Matthew's portrayal of Jesus through the pattern of Israel. He relates the concluding offer of world rule to the authority announced at Matthew's ending. These observations establish literary organisation; they do not by themselves establish that no remembered event lies behind it. [S1](#source-s1)

**Apply the test to TJ.** TJ supplies neither the stones-and-bread exchange nor the temple leap. Its fifty-one verses instead describe removal from ordinary society, instruction, extraordinary sights, an account of the celestial beings, and a commission. The reader is told what the period accomplishes: it prepares Jmmanuel to communicate knowledge and to use his abilities responsibly.

The two texts therefore cannot be compared as if TJ merely preserves a longer transcript of Matthew's three temptations. **The proposed redaction is a substantial replacement of the event's interpretation and content**, while retaining a forty-day interval, extraordinary transport or movement, an extensive view, celestial involvement, and preparation for ministry.

**Finding.** TJ offers a connected alternative preparation narrative. The common narrative position makes the comparison meaningful, but much of Part 1 is correspondence of motifs rather than the close verbal alignment found later in the chapter.

### 3. The forty days, fasting, and the timing of hunger

**The independently identified issue.** Beare connects Matthew's forty days and nights with Moses' fast. He also questions the placement of hunger after the forty days, reading the narration as making hunger arise at that point to initiate the first temptation. *(Beare, p. 108.)*

**TJ under the same test.** TJ 4:4–6 assigns the forty days to instruction and says nothing about fasting or an onset of hunger. Its account thus avoids this particular difficulty. The forty-day duration still carries the same possibility of literary or symbolic shaping; the presence of the number in TJ is not itself an independent chronological verification.

There are two limits to the criticism. Matthew says Jesus fasted and was hungry afterward; it does not explicitly say he felt no hunger earlier. Nor does Matthew 4:2 state that he drank no water. Importing Moses' complete abstinence into Matthew and then treating it as Matthew's explicit claim would exaggerate the evidence.

**Proposed change under TJ priority.** Retain the duration, remove the instruction, and introduce a fast whose closing hunger enables the bread test. The result changes what the forty days explain: acquired knowledge in TJ becomes demonstrated obedience in Matthew.

**Finding.** TJ avoids the fasting-and-hunger question through different content. This is a modest advantage in explanatory continuity, not a decisive contradiction in Matthew.

### 4. Who takes him, and why can the devil move him?

**The independently identified issue.** Beare draws attention to the change of agency: the Spirit leads Jesus in 4:1, but in 4:5 and 4:8 the devil transports or takes him. Beare's question is not simply whether supernatural movement is imaginable; it is why this opponent can exercise that power over Jesus. *(Beare, pp. 107, 110.)*

**TJ under the same test.** TJ 3:33 says Jmmanuel enters the metallic light. TJ 4:2–5 describes his arrival and introduction to celestial teachers. Verse 51 supplies the return by those celestial sons in the metallic light. The participants belong to the same mission throughout. He is taken for instruction and returned to undertake the work for which he has been prepared.

This gives TJ a clearer account of cooperation and purpose. Matthew's hostile transporter and TJ's instructing hosts are not interchangeable characters. Under the working premise, recasting the encounter as temptation would turn assistance into danger and require Jmmanuel's acceptance of instruction to become Jesus' refusal of the tempter's proposals.

**What the difference answers.** It removes the particular problem of an enemy's control over the protagonist. It does not establish that the vehicle or the visit existed. A transport mechanism described in a narrative is an explanation internal to that narrative, not external confirmation of the journey.

**Finding.** A meaningful advantage for TJ's continuity of agency; a plausible component of the proposed theological reversal.

### 5. The temple test, scripture, and the ethics of power

**The independently identified issues.** Beare observes that Psalm 91's protective language is pressed into service for a deliberate leap. He asks why the temple is needed if an ordinary precipice would serve, since Matthew never mentions the spectators a public demonstration would require. He also sees the exchange of scriptural citations as the work of a writer trained in religious disputation. *(Beare, pp. 110–111.)*

TJ contains no temple leap, no quotation of Psalm 91, and no scripture contest with Satan. These exact criticisms consequently do not apply to it. However, omitting a disputed scene is a less specific kind of answer than supplying a missing link within that scene.

TJ has an alternative ethical treatment of exceptional power. In 4:33–36 the teachers connect Jmmanuel's knowledge with acts others will regard as miraculous, warn him against abuse, and direct its use toward human well-being. This fits the ensuing healing ministry. The lesson is delivered as preparation for responsible action rather than as an invitation to stage a dangerous test.

Matthew also has a coherent ethical point: Jesus rejects the proposed misuse of divine protection. The comparative claim is therefore not that Matthew teaches reckless behaviour. It is that TJ expresses a related concern about power without the peculiar temple scenario Beare criticises.

**Finding.** TJ avoids the scene-specific objections and connects the ethics of power to subsequent work. There is a thematic relationship, but no basis for presenting TJ 4:35 as the demonstrable word-for-word source of Matthew 4:7.

### 6. The impossible mountain and the three viewing portals

**The independently identified issue.** Beare states that the mountain from which all kingdoms could be seen exists nowhere on Earth. On a literal geographical reading, increasing the observer's elevation cannot supply the unrestricted view Matthew describes. Beare therefore takes the setting as symbolic. *(Beare, pp. 104–105.)*

**TJ under the same test.** TJ 4:11–19 describes three portals. The first shows Israel, including details inside dwellings; the other two show different landscapes and populations. The view is supplied through the portals. It is not said to depend on Jmmanuel standing on a terrestrial summit overlooking every country.

This is a particularly useful distinction because the first view includes information that an ordinary elevated observer could not obtain even locally: interiors are visible. The text is specifying a different means of seeing, not merely a still higher vantage point.

**Proposed change under TJ priority.** Replace the detailed portal observations with a panoramic view from a mountain; compress the separate lands into all the world's kingdoms; and attach the view to an offer of dominion. The same broad motif—being shown extensive inhabited regions—then serves a different theological purpose.

Two qualifications keep this comparison exact. TJ shows three regions, not explicitly every kingdom. Also, calling the portals screens, cameras, holograms, or a particular technology goes beyond their description. They function as extraordinary viewing arrangements in the story; their engineering is not supplied.

**Finding.** TJ directly avoids the mountain's line-of-sight problem. This is one of the strongest local comparisons in Part 1. A visionary interpretation can make Matthew's scene intelligible too, but that is different from reading it as ordinary mountain travel.

### 7. Sonship, authority, and the direction of theological change

In Matthew 4:3 and 4:6, the challenge concerns Jesus' identity as God's Son. Beare connects it with the declaration at the baptism. His discussion of 4:8–10 also distinguishes the promised end from the proposed means: world rule is not rejected simply because rule itself is wrong; the unacceptable condition is worship of Satan. *(Beare, pp. 109, 112–113.)*

TJ 4:20–22 depicts god as a ruler of the celestial sons and human lineages. Verses 38–41 explicitly distinguish this ruler from Creation. Verses 42–46 warn against identifying Jmmanuel with god or Creation and commission him as Gabriel's son and a teacher of wisdom.

**The TJ-first reading has a clear theological direction.** A text insisting on these distinctions would need substantial alteration to become Matthew's presentation of the obedient divine Son. The removal of the instruction is therefore explicable in terms of the resulting message, not merely in terms of shortening a long episode.

The warning in TJ 4:42 also has a consequential narrative function: the chapter anticipates the very interpretation of Jmmanuel that the TJ-first hypothesis attributes to Matthew. Along with the predictions of opposition and bloodshed in 4:37, 44, and 47, it prepares the reader for later conflict. Verses 48–50 extend the forecast into a distant age of renewed revelation and space travel.

These predictions belong in the whole-chapter assessment. Within TJ's story they explain the mission's difficulty and eventual reception. As historical evidence of prediction, however, their force depends on establishing when that wording existed. The chapter cannot both supply the prediction and independently establish its antiquity.

**Finding.** Strong thematic consistency and a well-defined motive for redirection under TJ priority. This comparison identifies what would have been changed; it cannot establish the date of the change by itself.

### 8. Angels at the end, or teachers throughout?

Matthew 4:11 brings angels onto the scene after the devil leaves. TJ 4:5–10 makes celestial instruction the substance of the visit, and 4:51 gives the celestial sons responsibility for returning Jmmanuel.

Viljoen interprets Matthew's closing angelic service as an expression of Jesus' faithfulness and dignity. The assistance is connected with the protection invoked during the temptation and with nourishment after the fast. Thus the angels are not meaningless within Matthew's literary design, even though Matthew says little about them. [S2](#source-s2)

**Apply the historical-sequence test.** Their service still does not tell us how Jesus leaves the last setting or where he is when news of John's arrest reaches him. TJ supplies a continuing role for the celestial beings and names the return destination.

Under TJ priority, reducing an extended teaching relationship to a closing service scene would preserve celestial participation while removing the teachers' doctrinal content and authority. This fits the sonship change: Matthew's Jesus demonstrates obedience; TJ's Jmmanuel receives instruction he is to transmit.

**Finding.** TJ gives the participants a fuller role in the event and its conclusion. Matthew's literary ending has a purpose, but does not fill the travel gap identified by Beare.

### 9. Testing the TJ-specific material by the same standard

A full comparison must also inspect the material in TJ 4:1–51 that Matthew does not contain. It cannot count fifty-one verses as fifty-one independent confirmations.

**The opening and the return.** Read in isolation, TJ 4:1 could suggest a permanent departure from ordinary human society. Verses 4 and 51 delimit the absence and narrate a return. The coherent reading is that he ceased living among them during this interval. The opening wording is broad, and the later verses do the work of limiting it.

**Place.** “Between North and West” and the ends of the Earth are evocative rather than sufficient for mapping a destination. TJ provides more journey detail than Matthew, but does not provide a recoverable itinerary to the place of instruction. An explicit vehicle and return are genuine narrative additions; they do not make every geographical question disappear.

**The palace and the teachers.** TJ 4:20–32 describes the ruler, extraordinary beings, an incompatible atmosphere, and human lineages. These details explain the beings within TJ's cosmology. The descriptions are assertions made by the account, not independently documented physiology or population history. The depiction of god as both immortal and human also requires the reader to understand these terms within TJ's system; the chapter does not define how those qualities coexist.

**A close ancient literary parallel deserves attention.** In R. H. Charles's translation of 1 Enoch 70:2–4, Enoch is raised aloft, removed from ordinary human company, placed between north and west where angels measure the place of the elect, and shown the first fathers. TJ 4:1–10 follows a notably similar cluster and sequence. In 1 Enoch 34:1–2, a northern journey to the ends of the Earth leads to three heavenly portals; compare TJ 4:11–13. The subsequent use differs: Enoch's portals release winds, while TJ's show inhabited regions. [E1](#source-e1)

This comparison helps situate TJ's language in an established revelatory vocabulary. Under TJ priority, such vocabulary could have been available to an ancient writer describing an extraordinary journey. It also means the imagery is not wholly without literary parallels. As with Matthew's use of Deuteronomy, resemblance identifies a textual relationship or shared tradition to investigate; it does not alone determine when or in which direction a particular adaptation occurred.

**Finding for Part 1.** TJ avoids several precise objections to Matthew and provides a coherent preparation for ministry. Its strongest features are the alternative viewing mechanism, continuity of the celestial participants, and the connection between instruction and later teaching. Its distinctive cosmology and predictions require evidence beyond narrative coherence to establish their historical status.

## Part 2: Matthew 4:12–24 and TJ 4:52–62

### 10. The missing transition and TJ's explicit return

**The independently identified issue.** On p. 105 Beare notes the absence of a return from the temptation's settings. On p. 114 he again questions the connection: Matthew does not tell us what Jesus did after Satan's departure, where he stayed, or how much time passed before news of John's arrest. This criticism is directly relevant to the boundary between the requested parts. [B1](#source-b1)

The sequences are different:

| Step | Matthew 4:8–13 | TJ 4:51–52 |
|---|---|---|
| Last extraordinary setting | Very high mountain; Satan departs and angels serve | Instruction concludes with the celestial sons |
| Return to Galilee | No return journey described before the news | Celestial sons bring Jmmanuel back to Galilee |
| News of John's imprisonment | Received before the withdrawal into Galilee | Received after the narrated return |
| Local movement | Leaving Nazareth, Jesus settles in Capernaum | Jmmanuel leaves Nazareth and settles in Capernaum |

TJ's sequence does not require the reader to invent an unmentioned return from the extraordinary setting. Nazareth is identified as the point of departure for the next move. It is reasonable to infer he hears the news there or nearby, although TJ does not explicitly name the location of the messenger or report.

**Proposed redaction.** Remove the return in the metallic light, retain Galilee as the destination, and place the movement there after the news of the arrest. The result is a transition in which the earlier journey has no narrated conclusion and the news arrives at an unspecified location. This is a more exact explanatory proposal than simply observing that TJ has more detail.

The criticism is a gap, not a geographical impossibility. Capernaum and Nazareth are both within Galilee; moving from one to the other does not mean leaving Galilee. Nor is it impossible for news to reach someone in a sparsely populated area. Those stronger claims are unnecessary to the genuine point Beare makes.

**Finding.** The strongest direct answer in the chapter. TJ 4:51 performs exactly the connective work whose absence Beare identifies.

### 11. Isaiah's original setting and Matthew's fulfilment claim

**The independently identified issue.** Beare places Isaiah's oracle in the setting of the northern territories' subjection to Assyria and their hoped-for deliverance. Matthew selects geographical phrases, applies the light imagery to Jesus' arrival, and frames the relocation as fulfilment. Beare regards the original historical reference as displaced. *(Beare, pp. 115–116.)*

**TJ under the same test.** TJ 4:52–53 proceeds directly from the move to Capernaum to the opening proclamation. There is no Isaiah citation and no claim that the move fulfils that oracle. The historical-context criticism therefore has no equivalent target in TJ at this point.

The omission is particularly intelligible under TJ priority because the quoted geographical names already occur in TJ's relocation sentence. The proposed editor would have a nearby verbal cue for introducing Isaiah. That is a specific account of how the quotation could enter the story.

Scholarly assessment of this reuse is not uniform. Shin's 2026 study treats the Isaiah passage as a deliberate reconstruction of Galilee's meaning through memories of devastation and restoration, rather than as a simple one-to-one prediction. This helps distinguish the observable editorial operation from the judgment that the operation is illegitimate. [S3](#source-s3)

**Finding.** TJ avoids dependence on this fulfilment argument. The wording and placement are compatible with the proposed addition to a TJ-like account. Absence alone, however, does not decide whether a quotation was added to Matthew's source or removed from a later adaptation.

### 12. The tribal geography: a criticism that TJ also faces

Beare also questions the geographical phrase locating Capernaum in the territory of both Zebulun and Naphtali. He reads the pairing as serving the Isaiah citation rather than geographical precision. *(Beare, p. 115.)*

TJ 4:52 retains both tribal names. Consequently, **TJ's omission of the quotation does not eliminate this separate geographical question**. If the phrase is judged inaccurate in Matthew, it must be questioned in TJ too. If it is read more loosely as naming a wider region, that reading is available to both texts.

Under TJ priority the names could be inherited wording that prompted Matthew's quotation. That explains why the names are shared and why Matthew might use them, but does not make their local description more precise in TJ.

This distinction matters when evaluating whole passages: one sentence can preserve a useful travel connection and still retain a disputed geographical label. The return in 4:51 and the tribal pairing in 4:52 deserve separate judgments.

**Finding.** Shared geographical question; no comparative victory is counted for TJ on this point.

### 13. The preaching: what are people being asked to do?

**The independently identified observation.** Beare notes that Matthew gives Jesus the same opening proclamation as John: compare Matthew 3:2 and 4:17. On pp. 116–117 he interprets the repetition as emphasising continuity between the two ministries, while also allowing the possibility of a tradition known in Matthew's community. His observation is about literary and theological shaping, not a demonstration that two teachers could never share a message. [B1](#source-b1)

TJ 4:53 asks people to repent and turn to truth and knowledge. TJ's John also urges learning the truth in 3:11, so continuity is present; the two speeches are not identical. The opening proclamation now tells the audience the direction in which they are to turn.

This phrase is also connected backward and forward. Jmmanuel has received instruction in 4:4–9; he proclaims truth and knowledge in 4:53; offers to teach knowledge in 4:55; and preaches knowledge of the spirit in 4:60. The same activity passes from preparation to proclamation to discipleship and public practice.

**Proposed change under TJ priority.** Replace the explicit destination of repentance with the approaching kingdom, then make that formula the Baptist's proclamation as well. This would preserve the call to change while replacing the explanation of what the new life centres on.

Matthew's proclamation is not meaningless merely because it is brief: the Gospel develops repentance and the kingdom elsewhere. TJ's advantage is local explicitness and the close connection with its preceding instruction. It still leaves “truth and knowledge” to be filled out by the ensuing teaching.

**Finding.** A clear difference in the stated programme and a useful part of the cumulative redaction argument; repetition alone is not a factual contradiction.

### 14. The fishermen: a stronger invitation, but still an abrupt decision

**The independently identified issue.** Beare asks what prepared these men to leave their work and property so suddenly. Matthew supplies no prior acquaintance or deliberation. Beare's concern extends beyond the attractiveness of the phrase “fishers of men” to the whole compressed presentation of the decision. *(Beare, pp. 117–118.)*

**First pair: Matthew 4:18–20 / TJ 4:54–56.** TJ inserts an explicit promise to teach knowledge into the invitation. This supplies a recognisable relationship: teacher and learners. It strengthens the proposed inducement and ties recruitment to Jmmanuel's mission.

The departure is nevertheless immediate in both accounts. TJ does not say that these fishermen witnessed the celestial instruction, already knew Jmmanuel, saw a demonstration immediately before the call, or discussed what would happen to their livelihood. Those details cannot be supplied simply because they would make the decision easier to explain.

**Second pair: Matthew 4:21–22 / TJ 4:57–59.** Both accounts describe brothers leaving boat and father. TJ gives no additional speech for this second call. The first promise may explain the mission's general character, but the text does not specify whether these brothers heard it. This second scene is a useful internal check on any claim that the added teaching promise solves the entire recruitment problem.

Beare also compares the different calling accounts in Luke and John. TJ's agreement with Matthew's lakeside sequence does not reconcile those different settings; for this study it is evidence of close correspondence between TJ and Matthew. *(Beare, p. 118.)*

**Finding.** TJ offers a better-stated purpose for the first invitation. The abrupt-departure criticism remains substantially shared, particularly for the second pair.

### 15. “Their synagogues”: shared wording and the narrator's standpoint

Beare discusses the phrase in Matthew 4:23 in relation to the audience and the mission to Israel. The expression deserves study as a possible indication of a narrator's standpoint, but his p. 121 discussion does not establish that it is impossible for a Jewish narrator to use it. [B1](#source-b1)

TJ 4:60 has the same expression. It therefore does not remove the linguistic feature under examination. Deardorff proposes that a narrator writing after departure from Palestine could refer to its synagogues this way; on TJ priority, Matthew could then have retained that wording. [D1](#source-d1)

That is a possible explanation within Deardorff's larger reconstruction. The pronoun itself, however, does not locate the narrator in India, establish his religious identity, or date the composition. It can refer to the synagogues belonging to the people being described. Such an ordinary third-person reference must be considered for both texts.

**Finding.** A shared feature compatible with copying, but weak evidence for the direction of copying. It should not be counted as a difficulty absent from TJ.

### 16. Healing, Syria, and the closing crowds

**The independently identified issues.** Beare identifies the repeated comprehensive language—throughout Galilee, every disease, every infirmity, all Syria—as hyperbolic. He notes the lack of an itinerary or timescale and interprets the closing crowds as an audience assembled for the sermon, not necessarily a vast travelling procession. *(Beare, pp. 120–122.)*

**TJ 4:60–61 under the same test.** TJ also describes travel throughout Galilee, healing all diseases and infirmities, fame through the whole of Syria, and the bringing of all the sick. It does not provide elapsed time, numbers of patients, named witnesses for this summary, or a route. Beare's reservations about literal comprehensiveness apply here too.

TJ's preceding instruction supplies a narrative explanation for Jmmanuel's abilities and his reason for using them. That improves the chapter's internal causal structure. It does not independently verify the breadth of the healing report. Nor do the lists of afflictions establish that the two texts employ different diagnostic methods. Their English terms should not be treated as modern clinical classifications.

**Matthew 4:25 / TJ 4:62.** Both conclude with followers from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan. TJ's “many people” is less emphatic than the RSV's “great crowds,” but the same broad regional pattern survives. Neither sentence requires a single uninterrupted march of everyone named in those regions. If an interpretive allowance for summary and changing audiences is made, it belongs to both accounts.

**Finding.** The teaching description changes; the expansive healing and crowd summary largely does not. TJ supplies a fuller account of preparation, but shares the evidential limitations of the closing report.

## 17. What the two parts show when read together

**TJ's distinctive contribution is a chain of instruction put into practice.** This is stronger than a collection of isolated longer phrases:

| Stage | TJ's stated connection | Matthew's corresponding presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Knowledge received, 4:4–9 | Obedience demonstrated in scriptural tests, 4:1–10 |
| Use of ability | Knowledge, restraint, and human benefit, 4:33–36 | Refusal of the tempter's proposals, 4:3–10 |
| Commission | Mission as teacher and prophet, 4:45–47 | No comparable commissioning speech in this episode |
| Return | Celestial sons return him to Galilee, 4:51 | Angels serve; the travel transition remains unstated, 4:11–12 |
| Public message | Truth and knowledge, 4:53 | The kingdom is at hand, 4:17 |
| Recruitment | A promise to teach knowledge, 4:55 | A promise to make fishers of people, 4:19 |
| Public activity | Teaching, knowledge of the spirit, healing, 4:60 | Teaching, gospel of the kingdom, healing, 4:23 |

Under the TJ-first premise, the proposed changes have a consistent direction: remove the account of acquired instruction and the distinctions among Gabriel, god, and Creation; represent the preparation as the Son's successful test; and reframe the message around the kingdom. The reconstructed editorial programme accounts for changes at several separated points, including both the long opening episode and short phrases in the public ministry.

The return sentence is especially valuable because it contributes something different from theological agreement. It resolves a concrete sequence problem independently identified by Beare. The viewing portals likewise answer a particular physical objection to the mountain scene. These observations deserve greater weight than simply finding TJ's theology more congenial.

Matthew also has an intelligible chapter-wide design: tested Son, scriptural fulfilment, kingdom proclamation, called followers, teaching and healing. The comparison is between two organised accounts, not between an organised account and random material. TJ's stronger local connections are evidence for the proposed transformation, while Matthew's scriptural organisation shows how a redactor could give the resulting account a different unity.

### Evidence assessment

| Finding | Result of applying the same scrutiny to TJ | Weight in the TJ-first argument |
|---|---|---|
| All kingdoms visible from a mountain | TJ describes mediated views instead | Strong local difference; the apparatus is a claim within the narrative |
| Devil's control of transportation | TJ has cooperative hosts and a consistent mission | Meaningful explanatory advantage |
| Fasting and hunger sequence | No fasting episode in TJ | Modest; Matthew does not explicitly exclude earlier hunger |
| Temple leap and scripture debate | Absent from TJ; an ethical warning about power takes a different form | Alternative treatment rather than a repaired transcript |
| Angels' role | Instruction and return are described in TJ | Fuller continuity; connected with the transport finding |
| Return to Galilee | Explicit in TJ 4:51 before the news in 4:52 | Strongest direct correspondence with Beare's criticism |
| Isaiah's original context | No fulfilment claim in TJ | Specific objection avoided; direction of change remains inferred |
| Zebulun–Naphtali wording | Retained in TJ | Shared question |
| Proclamation and teaching purpose | Explicit and repeated through TJ's chapter | Strong thematic continuity; not an independent dating test |
| First fishermen's response | Teaching promise adds purpose; immediate departure remains | Partial answer |
| Second fishermen's response | Immediate departure remains without an added speech | Shared question |
| “Their synagogues” | Identical relevant feature | Non-discriminating wording |
| Comprehensive healing and Syrian fame | Retained in TJ | Shared evidential limits |
| Regional following | Essentially the same concluding pattern | Shared summary structure |
| Ancient revelatory imagery | Close Enoch parallels also occur in TJ | Important literary context; not independent confirmation of the journey |

These rows are not independent trials: several arise from the single contrast between temptation and instruction. The assessment therefore rests on the quality of the particular matches and on their connected explanatory force, rather than on multiplying the number of observations into a probability of authenticity.

**Overall conclusion.** Part 1 presents a substantial alternative to Matthew's temptation construction, with clear advantages in the continuity of its participants and the mechanism of the viewing scene. Part 2 contains the chapter's strongest missing-link comparison, the explicit return to Galilee, and reinforces the instructional purpose through proclamation and recruitment. Its final scenes also preserve several questions found in Matthew. The defensible affirmative case is that **TJ supplies a coherent preparation-and-teaching sequence whose removal or theological redirection would explain several specific features of Matthew**, particularly the travel gap. That is the principal finding of this two-part study.

## 18. Sources and citation notes

- <a id="source-b1"></a>**B1 — Francis Wright Beare (1981), *The Gospel according to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary*.** Directly consulted: pp. 104–113 for the temptation; pp. 114–118 for the relocation, Isaiah, proclamation, and calls; pp. 120–122 for the ministry summary and crowds; p. 88 for the Baptist's proclamation. Citations use printed book pages. Beare's critical observations and his proposed explanations are distinguished from this addendum's TJ-first inferences.

- <a id="source-s1"></a>**S1 — William Loader (2016), [“What light does Matthew's use of Mark in Matthew 1–4 throw on Matthew's theological location?”](https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/3284/7609), *HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies* 72(4), a3284.** Relevant sections directly consulted, particularly the treatment of Israel/Moses patterns and the final temptation. DOI: [10.4102/hts.v72i4.3284](https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3284). Used for literary structure, not as an endorsement of TJ or as evidence that all theological composition is historically false.

- <a id="source-s2"></a>**S2 — Francois P. Viljoen (2020), [“The Matthean characterisation of Jesus by angels”](https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/5859/14986), *HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies* 76(4), a5859.** The section “Angels at the temptation” directly consulted. DOI: [10.4102/hts.v76i4.5859](https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.5859). Supplies a literary explanation of Matthew 4:11 against which the narrower travel-gap criticism can be tested.

- <a id="source-s3"></a>**S3 — In Cheol Shin (2026), [“The theology of restoration as seen through an intertextual reading of Matthew 4:14–16”](https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0259-94222026000100050&script=sci_arttext), *HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies* 82(1), a11374.** Article consulted, particularly the treatment of the Isaiah citation and the conclusion. DOI: [10.4102/hts.v82i1.11374](https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v82i1.11374). Provides an alternative appraisal of Matthew's reuse of Isaiah, while recognising its theological reworking. Works cited by Shin are not presented here as separately inspected sources.

- <a id="source-e1"></a>**E1 — R. H. Charles, translator, *The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)*, with an introduction by W. O. E. Oesterley, SPCK, 1952 reprint of the 1917 edition.** The site's supplied text was compared at 70:2–4 and 34:1–2, with chapter 71 as adjacent context. [Local text](../../additional/book-of-enoch/The%20Book%20of%20Enoch%20-%20R.H.%20Charles%20-%201952.md). This is a primary literary comparison, not a modern scholar's judgment about TJ. Chapter and verse references identify the passages across editions.

- <a id="source-d1"></a>**D1 — James W. Deardorff, [“Matthew–TJ Verse Comparisons, Mt 4”](../mt4.htm).** The original study supplies the precedent for the comparison and its hypotheses about the transformation of instruction, the relocation, and the narrator's standpoint. This addendum evaluates the full local TJ chapter against the critical sources rather than treating every proposed solution as already demonstrated.

- <a id="source-t1"></a>**T1 — Texts compared:** [Matthew 4, RSV](../../mt/mt4.htm); [TJ 4, current chapter text](../../tj/tj4.htm); the adjacent baptism material in [Matthew 3](../../mt/mt3.htm#verse16) and [TJ 3](../../tj/tj3.htm#verse30). The coverage map includes every verse in the requested TJ ranges and the final Matthew verse needed to complete the alignment.