|
Scholars (prior to Dr. Woodard) made incredibly inaccurate and inadequate assessments of Washington Codex, saying it gives no indication of dates. Those analysts overlooked what are readily recognizable, even though covert, multiplicity of First Century AD Aramaic presentations of specific dates for each manuscript within that bound collector’s edition of First Century AD Gospels. Those earlier fellows also failed to recognize that each of these Gospels tells exactly the year of Jesus’ Birth (750 AUC, our 4 BC) as well as exact year of Jesus’ Crucifixion (784 AUC, Our 30 AD). No longer is it necessary to speculate about any of these matters. —READ MORE BELOW— |
| Home |
History and Content of
Codex W |
Meet the Author: | Other Books by Dr. Woodard | Order Page |
|
ABOUT THE BOOK COVER
CLICK HERE to see an enlargement of the above book cover and Mark's hand. A picture of the back cover is also here.
|
The
front and back cover of Codex W is wooden, and has a portrait of the
four gospel writers on it. Matthew and John on the front cover, and
Luke and Mark on the back cover. The back cover is shown here
with Luke and Mark. Notice that Mark is holding
his hand out to show us that the ends of some fingers are missing.
Legend tells us that he cut them off, being a Levi, so he would not
have to serve in the Temple.
Here
is a
painting of
Matthew by his contemporaries on the wooden book cover of the
Washington Codex. His name, date of Gospel, his
residence while writing his Gospel, and much more are all
encoded in Greek and Aramaic, and are all painted into the
picture! This is also true of the painting of Mark and Luke.
The painting of John is too damaged to tell much more than the
fact that he had gray hair.The Washington Codex enables us to know precisely when, where, and by whom each of the Four Gospels were written, as well as where and when some slight changes and additions to original manuscripts were made.
The Four Gospels in the Washington Codex are one set of First Century AD, Aramaic Annotated, Stamped, Sealed, and Signed Copies of Apostolic Era Manuscripts. They even include on the Wooden Cover, First Century AD Jewish Christian Painted Representations of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark (in that order).
Luke’s Aramaic Seal from 73-74 AD, featured on this page, is just one of many scores of First Century AD Aramaic Entries I have found upon Codex W: Old and Holy. (See additional data within http://www.lasallemonument.com/ or communicate with the Author via E Mail at csweb.net. for additional no obligation information.)
The effect of my discoveries about this previously misdated Set of First Century AD Gospel Originals is sounding the Death Knell for, and is indeed mercifully and humanly killing, that Figment of Imagination known as “Q.” It had been incorrectly assumed, contrary to best evidences within Church History, and even contrary to Biblical Evidences, that a “more simple” Gospel of Mark was first written. Matthew and Luke then supposedly came along, each independently using Mark’s Earlier Gospel, to “Expand and Enhance” in keeping with later, “more advanced” Church Conceptions and Liturgies.
To explain material common to Matthew and Luke, but absent from Mark, these earlier scholars concluded that Luke and Matthew separately and independently used not only Mark’s Gospel, but a “Sayings ‘Source’” (German, “Quelle”) in crafting their “evolutionary enhancements” of Mark’s Gospel.
Below: Aramaic “Athena” and other data Introduced to the Congregation I then served.
Above: Luke’s 827-828 Roman AUC Dated (Our 73-74 AD) Kodex W Manuscript Aramaic “Stamp-Seal of Apostolic Orthodoxy” (Eusebius). Winding from top to bottom, in First Century AD Dead Sea Scrolls Script Style is, “Athena, ‘H-zk, Lukas’”
(s q w l - H-kz -hnhtA ).
|
This is a segment of the last page of the Gospel of Mark. You can see his Aramaic seal and the date, which translates to 72 AD In all areas of science and academia the validity of EVERY discovery and theory is disputed, and ALL GREAT DISCOVERIES are rejected for a few years before they are accepted. As a result of Dr. Woodard’s research this discovery is being recognized by an ever-growing number of scholars, but is virtually unknown outside of this small circle of academics. There may be folks who will want to argue with some aspects of Dr. Woodard’s claim (at least for a while); but he predicts that eventually all of the academic community will eventually recognize Codex W as being an original. |
Luke’s Name and Date are here a forensic paleographical challenge. Elsewhere they are much plainer. “Athena” seems quite obvious to me. Reading of the above Hebrew is from Right to Left. Comparing that to the actual Lucan Seal, within my Christian Newsletter, note that the First Century AD Seal, within outer and rightmost segment, winds downward and somewhat around from left to right, as would be expected within Aramaic. Experts should be able to use computer enhancements to recognize (to left of "Athena") Aramaic, qwl ("Luke") or perhaps also with the Aramaic "S" (at the right) also affixed, for "Lukas."( Notice that the Aramaic is upside down as to the Greek Text. It is near unto where Luke, on first Page of his Gospel, tells Theophilus that he, Luke, has properly researched and is giving Truthful and Proper Account of the Evangelion. The Aramaic is also quite small, although quite recognizable. I spotted it first, rather quickly, as looking at Codex W, in 1981. It was intentionally designed as it is to discourage recognition by those who only casually read the Greek Script. Reason for that Covert Usage of Aramaic was to do their best to hide Names, Locations, and Dates from Persecuting Roman Officials. This was an Era of very severe and deadly persecution, and authorities then, as now, tried to trace “Paper Trails” to Leaders of Religious Groups considered by some to be a threat. The Apostle Paul was referring to this usage of small and Covert Aramaic by some of his Jewish friends when he told the Galatians, “See with what large Script I sign my own Epistles.” Paul may have been a bit too bold for his own good, and for the good of his supportive Christian Communities. Luke was more careful. |
It becomes obvious as one learns secrets of Codex W, that these earlier dreamers were wrong concerning a supposed evolutionary advancement from Mark to Matthew and Luke, via those two separately using a supposedly earlier, more simple Mark, along with a Sayings Source now called "Q," to separately and independently fashion their "later, more advanced, enhanced, and expanded" Gospels. Mark was not the first written Gospel; and there never was, nor will there ever be a “Q.” It was a Fictitious Construct of Evolutionary Theologians who chose to have more faith in a non-existent Manuscript than to be more in harmony with the best of Church Historical and Biblical Evidences. Inherent within their prideful, Delusional Constructs, unfortunately for their Disciples and the Churches, was a concomitant increase of doubts in Textual Integrity of the Four Gospels.
The truth is as follows. Matthew’s Gospel was first one written. His First Greek Version, crafted from his yet earlier Aramaic Pages, was written in 790 AUC (36 AD) at Damascus, Syria. Genealogy, Infancy Data, and Great Commission were added to the same Manuscript in 67 AD in Aun, Egypt.
John Mark, in Athens, Greece, during 70-72 AD, used an Early (Proto) Version of Matthew (without at first having Matthew’s own aforementioned Aun, Egypt Expansions) to form a Gospel including remembrances and emphases of Peter. All of that is definitely in accord with Church History.
Luke, in turn, in that same Athens, Greece, in 73-74 AD, had available, as crafting his own Epic, both Matthew’s (Likely the Aun, Egypt Longer Version) and Mark’s earlier creations. Luke undoubtedly had been in regular contact with both John Mark at Athens and Matthew at Damascus.
That information and those dates and places are given in multiplicity of ways within many Aramaic Annotations upon pages of Kodex W. There are many more Aramaic Entries than I show in this Web Page. It becomes apparent that the previous Figment of Imagination, that “Phantom Q,” as I call it, is not now a necessary device.
Codex W discoveries will be annihilating Q! —killing it! We will try to be as humane as we can be about this mercy killing. It is actually a mercy killing. That nonexistent monstrosity has lived too long already; and it is even now, with my discoveries, shot so full of holes and is crippled so badly, that the only humane thing is to put it to death, rather than let it whimper in pitiful pain for decades. I don’t know exactly when we will have the Final Rites; but the Funeral Dirge has already begun!
Below, I present a Photograph of Levi Matthew’s 790 AUC (36 AD) Aramaic “Stamp of Apostolic Orthodoxy.” (Eusebius). Somewhat smeared, and complicated by incredible amount of intricate details, reading from top to bottom, in a partial circle is, qsmd (Aramaic, DMSQ, “Damascus”). Compare that to Luke's more obvious usage of same technique.
|
|
The left side is untouched Black & White Copy from Freer Gallery of Art of a portion of last Page of Matthew. Greek Text Upside Down; approximately 2x Enlargement. Most obvious components are, winding from top-bottom, First Century AD Aramaic, “dmsq” (Damascus, qsmd ) and a very cleverly interlaced “M’th’y” (Matthew, whtam, or, ytm). This Stamp has had later hand entries that are so small and intricate that they are very difficult to trace. Covert naming of Evangelists, Locations, Dates are on each Kodex W Gospel in a multitude of Manuscript Pages. |
Cleverly interlaced is Matthew’s Name. At Lower Left Corner is a date, Zayin-Peh-Yode. First Century AD Aramaic Alphabetic Numerical Import of that was and is 790 AUC, Our 36 AD.
In 1981, one very cold, blizzard-like, snowy January Day, on flat, windswept plains of Western Oklahoma, I entered warm confines of Impressively Tall, Grey-Stoned, Fortress-Like Seminary Library at Phillips University. That Enid, Oklahoma University and Library has since become defunct and bankrupt. In one sense, I see the demise of that once respected Seminary and Library as involving the poisonous fruits of a Phantom Document called “Q.”
That institution in 1981 was still alive. Talk and speculations about “Q,” and impressive-sounding lectures about and blind faith in that actually non-existent Figment of Imagination were then still alive. Talk about “Q” and associated growing doubts about Textual Integrity of the Four Gospels still reverberated in that now dead facility.
Evangelistic fervor, faith, and spiritual strength were dying in hearts and minds of young ministerial students, and in Churches they served. They were not well spreading to the Christian populist their freshly learned faith in Phantom Q. They me sort of Ancient Punctuation, Markings, or Symbols, betraying Poetic and Musical Structures. You see, if portions of the Gospels were written at the outset as Poetry and Liturgical Hymns, one might then approach that Literary Genre at least somewhat differently than if the Authors were trying to give scientific, Lecture-Hall-Like, audio-and-video-tape-recorded accounts of absolutely precise, scientifically verifiable, and completely literal historical events. Actually, there is no such thing as the latter that I just described, but maybe you get the idea about my looking for Scribal Indications of Early Poetic, Hymnal, and Liturgical markings, among varying Literary and Theological Genre, within what are viewed as Very Holy Documents, whatever the Literary Style.
Thus it was that I had become somewhat obsessed or Possessed to go with magnifying glass to the Oldest Gospels to look for evidences of Poetic and Musical Literary Structure. Now, some might see that as a bit radical and strange!
It seems to me that the Lord God had become tired and a bit peeved about what was going on in the Seminaries and among Clergy and Churches! He used me, as an individual obsessed with finding out some relatively not-so-important details of minutia, to find and announce something really huge, something the Lord God especially wanted known, to correct a multitude of Earlier and Yet Continuing Theological Obsessions with Major Errors, involving, among other things, deep-seated doubts about Textual and Literary Validity of the Four Gospels.
The Lord God wanted to use me to eventually show and tell Theologians and Bible Scholars that they have gotten full of something other than His Holy Spirit and Truth! He wanted someone to straighten out false and destructive ideas and teachings concerning the Four Gospels. What I first saw with my magnifying glass at now defunct Phillips University Seminary Library, when I inspected Photographs of entirety of Pages within Codex W, was First Century AD Styled Aramaic Entries, scores upon scores of them! Since I was but an amateur at forensic paleography and at Semitic Language at that time, it took a while to adequately decipher those Aramaic Entries. Nevertheless, I did so, while Devotees of Nonexistent Q scoffed at that Aramaic that actually is scientifically and forensically verifiable! What I first found in 1981 has now led to the solving (indeed, the final resolution!) of the so-called “Synoptic Problem.”
The Lord is using what I found in that dying, but then still warm Seminary Library, out on the cold and somewhat barren, windswept plains of Western Oklahoma for the absolute annihilation of “Q!” What I found in that Now Tragically and Symbolically Dead Theological Seminary Library (where Q once valiantly struggled to stay alive to sow poisonous seeds and fruit), is now sounding the Death Knell and Funeral Dirge for that Monstrously Erroneous Construct from Figments of Misled Imaginations. As a matter of fact, it is now time to hold the Final Rites for that Malicious Creation that I call, “Phantom Q.”
You see, “Q,” related to German, Quelle, (“Source”) never existed, except in ministerial minds preoccupied with lesser things. Theologians encountered the Fallacious and Mischievous Ideas of Societal (as distinguished from physical, botanical, and biological sciences) Evolution to Higher and Better Things. These Theologians left their Appointed and Called Tasks of serving and furthering the Supremely Important Good news of forgiveness, faith, hope, and love. They left behind furtherance of Spiritual Powers of Healing, left behind Higher Realms of Spiritual Truth, Life, and Sacrificial Service. They were led instead by devious deceptions down a pathetic path that has resulted in growing doubt, despair, and dwindling numbers in congregations. Folks coming to churches hungering for something Holier and Higher have not been, nor will they ever be, Spiritually Nourished from that Cancerous and Poisonous Figment of Imagination, Phantom “Q.”
Those ideas of Historical, Societal and Theological Evolution, of course, are now seen as utter garbage. Foolhardy delusions! Witness the many Wars and Rumors of Wars ever since, and the currently escalating worldwide tensions, violence, terrorism, slaughters, all in names of Holy Wars and Supposedly Holy Vendettas and Jihads and Crusades in Names of Allah, Yahweh, God, Jesus! Witness also the spending and destructive wasting of untold Billions of Dollars in Terrorism with Bombs and Suicide Bombers to supposedly free or punish people, in God’s Name, while often innocent people are maimed and mangled, and while millions are starving and going without adequate nutrition and medicines, and while preachers are preoccupied with Non-Existent Documents! So much for that Societal Evolution! (This is not to say that I am not supportive of my Nation and of Our Soldiers; but I am saying that war always inherently involves tragic failures, sin, waste of people and resources; and that our current situation certainly is an example that we are not ever evolving socially to higher human social orders; and I am saying that such ideas--that were behind the origin of the Q Hypothesis-- were and are delusional thinking, as Holy Scripture teaches.)
While headed down Hazardous Highways of Mistaken Ideas of Human Grandiosity and Societal Evolution to Delusional Mirage of Ever Higher and Greater Things, Theologians applied some of that thinking to the Four Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke were highly, emphasis. Luke and Matthew also shared very closely some materials not present in Mark. What could account for those similarities and differences? Why, look for a more simple beginning, with evolutionary, historical, societal and theological progress toward higher and more grandiose levels!
