Dear Dave,
I expect I could read the Latin Gospels if I wanted to - -but why? They were originally written in Greek! Translations always add or take away something.
Dear Talmida,
Yes the Gospels were translated into Greek before Latin, but Latin translations were made, it is uncertain whether from Hebrew/Aramaic, or Greek about AD 200.
Yes we have ancient Greek texts, but none nearly so old as AD 200. It has been common practice to reconstruct ‘Original Language Texts’ from more recent texts, some are honest attempts, like the Stuttgart Vulgate, and some are plain forgeries like the Arabic Diatessaron, and the Syriac commentary of Ephrem Syrus, (the Armenian is older).
So it seems to be with the Greek texts. They are clearly based on the Old Latin texts of AD 200. The original Greek are lost. The present Old Greek are not so much forgeries as of misunderstood ancestry.
So I say, at least for the Gospels, the Latin is better than the Greek.
You’re right that the word “Jew” derives from the Latinization of the Hebrew yehuda (perhaps via the Greek? not sure), but nevertheless, today we call members of the tribes of Israel past and present, “Jews”.
So you accept that this is a modern misstranslation?
I do not reject your definition, only assert that in the context of the Gospels it is lible to confuse.
Jesus was one. He was born in Bethlehem which was in Judah (Matt 2:6). He grew up in Nazareth, which was in the Galilee.
Yes, he was a Judahite by descent through the BVM, and by acknowledgment by St Joseph.
Yes he was a Mosaicist by religion.
That he was a Semite is probable, but not proven, as his history is in the Northern Kingdom of Israel/Samaria.
I’m not quite sure the purpose of trying to trace Jesus racial background. Jesus needs to have been from Judah (the tribe), just as he needs to have been descended from David in order to fulfill the prophesies. Most likely, he was a Semite. I cannot imagine why one would try to distance Jesus from the rest of his earthly people.
I am not.
I am just trying to get accurate thought on the subject.
The aspects of Jewishness need to be separated in order to understand the context of the Gospels.
For instance, when the ‘Jews’ are being cursed, it is not the Mosaicists who are being cursed, but the Quisling Judeans, and their scibes and Pharisees.
Just because political boundaries made Jesus Galilean does not deprive him of the Jewishness that results from being an Israelite.
Do not roll up the aspects of Jewishness, that is the very error which caused the holocaust. See previous paragraph.
I do not accept the witness of the Shroud – I do not say it is false, but I do not believe that I am not required as a catholic to accept it in faith.
Aside from race, of course, Jesus was also a religious Jew: he was circumcised, prayed in the synagogue, and taught in the Temple. Although religion as we know it today did not really exist in Jesus day, the people who shared a belief in the God of Abraham back then are today still known as Jews.
Et pax vobiscum.
Again, I stress, I accept his faith was based on the teaching of Moses, and I accept that you consider that a part bof Judaism, but rolling up all the aspects into a pseudo-racial aspect is unhelpful to understanding.
Ask yourself, what is an atheistic Jew: they do exist!
