Psalm 22

[Matthias]

that brings the point that is Matthew even jewish to begin with?

“Matthew is usually regarded as the ‘most Jewish gospel’ since it bears evidence of more direct and more informed interaction with texts, concepts, and institutions usually identified with Jewish life at the conclusion of the first century CE.”

The Gospel of Matthew: Within and Without Judaism - Yale University Press

John Kampen— Matthew is usually regarded as the “most Jewish gospel” since it bears evidence of more direct and more informed interaction with texts, concepts, and institutions usually identified with... READ MORE

yalebooks.yale.edu

“Matthew is the most Jewish-centric of the four gospels.”

Insights on the Bible: The Gospel of Matthew

insight.org

”So without a doubt, Matthew is the most Jewish gospel.”

Day 276: Matthew: The Most Jewish Gospel

Four View of the Good News, Part 1

jamesjackson.blog

“Matthew’s is the most Jewish of all the gospels.”

The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of Matthew | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

“Of the four Gospel writers, Matthew, a Jew himself, is the one who most often quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures to demonstrate how Jesus fulfilled prophecy.”

Four gospels, four distinct views—Matthew the traditionalist

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the story of Jesus’ ministry on Earth. Why don’t we have one book about Jesus, rather than four distinct profiles? In a celebrity biography, the basic facts are the same, but much can be different. The authors may interview different people...

www.simivalleyacorn.com

a jewish cant read whether is young or virgin is really suspicious of this Matthew character... logical thinking...

As I mentioned previously, Matthew quoted the Jewish (not Christian!) translation of the Bible used by Jews in the Diaspora.

newer Christian side of those translation is honest and not repeating the mistake from bad source is commendable

 

[PanInVietnam]

again, if a "jewish" quote from hebrew text yet unable to read or understand the difference between "young" or "virgin" in HEBREW.

unless this "jewish" on purpose mislead non hebrew at that time with "virgin" instead? anyway as a "outsider" standpoint, only the hebrew knows and understands the original text whether is "young" or "virgin" can be easily verified. no translator needed.

no disrespect to those seniors in this forum

 

[Matthias]

again, if a "jewish" quote from hebrew text yet unable to read or understand the difference between "young" or "virgin" in HEBREW.

The translators of the text were Jewish experts in Hebrew and in Greek.

unless this "jewish" on purpose mislead non hebrew at that time with "virgin" instead? anyway as a "outsider" standpoint, only the hebrew knows and understands the original text whether is "young" or "virgin" can be easily verified. no translator needed.

no disrespect to those seniors in this forum

 

[Matthias]

@PanInVietnam this is a first century Jewish quarrel. Jews against Jews.

@Eliyahu613 is representing / defending the wicked side of the Jewish dispute.

 

[JohnDB]

The Syriac manuscripts, a major source for the modern scripture conglomeration was written in Aramaic and not Hebrew or Greek.
Because not all Jews went to Jewish elementary school. School was made compulsory for children in 60AD for Jews in Israel but in 70AD Jerusalem was destroyed and a few years later a second revolt continued a cascade of cities being destroyed. The keystone event was Herod placing effigies all over Jerusalem and a Roman Eagle over the gate of the Temple.

The Diaspora included many locations and concentrations. All along the southern edge of the Mediterranean as well as Asia and beyond. Italy had expelled the Jews previous to this. So where they didn't really settle there the Christians were always increasing in gentile believers as time went by.

Greek/Latin were two languages spoken and Aramaic was just as common.

 

[Eliyahu613]

He didn’t mistranslate. He quoted the LXX.

Matthew 1:23 Interlinear: Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.'

biblehub.com

Bs"d

In that case, Matthew goes wrong by quoting a wrong translation.

And the LXX is not a reliable document. Here are a few excerpts from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, here to be found:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home from the entry "Septuagint" which show the reliability of the LXX:


The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).

.....................

On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in.

...............

The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text.

...................

Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint.


So the Catholics openly admit they corrupted the LXX.


Apart from that, of the seven times that the word "almah" appears in the Tanach, the LXX translates is four times as "young woman", one time as "youth", and only two times as "parthenos", meaning "virgin", one of those two times being Isaiah 7:14.

So the translators of the LXX knew very well what "almah" means; "young woman". So why does it state in Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"? Most
likely Christian corruption.


The meaning of "parthenos" in the LXX is also ambiguous. Because after Dina has been raped in Gen 34, she is still called in verse 3 a
"parthenos", a virgin, and there is spoken about here "virginal status", also using the word "parthenos", after she has been raped.

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

In that case, Matthew goes wrong by quoting a wrong translation.

And the LXX is not a reliable document. Here are a few excerpts from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, here to be found:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home from the entry "Septuagint" which show the reliability of the LXX:


The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).

.....................

On account of its diffusion alone the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in.

...............

The Septuagint Version, while giving exactly as to the form and substance the true sense of the Sacred Books, differs nevertheless considerably from our present Hebrew text.

...................

Again, we must not think that we have at present the Greek text exactly as it was written by the translators; the frequent transcriptions during the early centuries, as well as the corrections and editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius impaired the purity of the text: voluntarily or involuntarily the copyists allowed many textual corruptions, transpositions, additions, and omissions to creep into the primitive text of the Septuagint.


So the Catholics openly admit they corrupted the LXX.


Apart from that, of the seven times that the word "almah" appears in the Tanach, the LXX translates is four times as "young woman", one time as "youth", and only two times as "parthenos", meaning "virgin", one of those two times being Isaiah 7:14.

So the translators of the LXX knew very well what "almah" means; "young woman". So why does it state in Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"? Most
likely Christian corruption.


The meaning of "parthenos" in the LXX is also ambiguous. Because after Dina has been raped in Gen 34, she is still called in verse 3 a
"parthenos", a virgin, and there is spoken about here "virginal status", also using the word "parthenos", after she has been raped.

I appreciate that you’ve backed off from the comment you made about Matthew mistranslating.

Matthew quoted a Jewish translation. A Jewish translation that was widely used by Jews in the Diaspora hundreds of years before the Messiah was born. There is no evidence that anyone altered the particular passage in question. Even you can do nothing but retreat to saying “most likely”.

Mary was a virgin when God, her God, miraculously caused her to conceive the Messiah in her womb by the power of his spirit overshadowing her, without her having any relations with a man. Your spiritual ancestors slander her and blaspheme her God. You follow in their footsteps.

 

[Matthias]

@PanInVietnam the God of the Jews, the one and only true God, is able to supernaturally create human life in the womb of a virgin. When you get around to reading the New Testament you’ll find out that he did, and you’ll learn how he did it.

 

[Eliyahu613]

I appreciate that you’ve backed off from the comment you made about Matthew mistranslating.

Bs"d

Giving a wrong translation because you yourself are quoting a wrong translation is also mistranslating.

 

[Eliyahu613]

@PanInVietnam the God of the Jews, the one and only true God, is able to supernaturally create human life in the womb of a virgin. When you get around to reading the New Testament you’ll find out that he did, and you’ll learn how he did it.

Bs"d

NOWHERE in the whole Hebrew Bible is a virgin birth to be found. That is only found in pagan mythology.

Isaiah 7 does NOT speak about the birth of the messiah. It gives a sign to king Achaz, who lived 700 years before JC. So it cannot have any bearing on JC.

Read here what is going on in Isaiah 7: Isaiah 7

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

Giving a wrong translation because you yourself are quoting a wrong translation is also mistranslating.

I took you at your word.

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

NOWHERE in the whole Hebrew Bible is a virgin birth to be found. That is only found in pagan mythology.

Isaiah 7 does NOT speak about the birth of the messiah. It gives a sign to king Achaz, who lived 700 years before JC. So it cannot have any bearing on JC.

Read here what is going on in Isaiah 7: Isaiah 7

The first century Jews who you are writing against don’t agree. When @PanInVietnam reads the New Testament he will see this for himself. He will also see how the Jewish religious authorities acted in that day.

 

[Eliyahu613]

The first century Jews who you are writing against don’t agree. When @PanInVietnam reads the New Testament he will see this for himself. He will also see how the Jewish religious authorities acted in that day.

Bs"d

If only the first century believers would have been able to read Hebrew, then the problem wouldn't have got started.

 

[PanInVietnam]

i have to agree with eliyahu on this (logical approach of 'facts' and not based on further theory). Key word is the origin language doesnt says any "virgin" yet the nt 'hebrew' native author able to misquoted somehow allow confusion for latter generation... makes no sense...

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

If only the first century believers would have been able to read Hebrew, then the problem wouldn't have gotten started.

What is your evidence that Jews living in Judea in the 1st century were unable to read Hebrew?

What language were the scrolls used in synagogues written in?

When Jesus read from the scrolls, what language was he reading?

 

[Matthias]

i have to agree with eliyahu on this (logical approach of 'facts' and not based on further theory). Key word is the origin language doesnt says any "virgin" yet the nt 'hebrew' native author able to misquoted somehow allow confusion for latter generation... makes no sense...

There was no misquoting. The Jewish language experts who translated the Hebrew into Greek did so centuries before Christianity began. You’ve allowed @Eliyahu613 to blind you.

When you read the New Testament you will read that Jesus’ mother conceived Jesus without having sexual relations with a man. You will read that the God of the Jews caused it to happen.

 

[Matthias]

“Hebrew was a living language in first-century Israel, part of a multi-lingual environment (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). Jewish teachers of that period (first century tannaim from both Galilee and Judea) ordinarily passed on their teachings in Hebrew.“

Hebrew as a Spoken Language in First-century Israel | Jerusalem Perspective

www.jerusalemperspective.com

 

[Matthias]

The “problem” in the first-century wasn’t misquoting or illiteracy @PanInVietnam. The problem was the sin and rebellion of the Jewish religious authorities. In other words, it was a spiritual problem.

Jesus, himself a Jew, was vindicated by the God of the Jews. That’s the New Testament storyline.

In @Eliyahu613 we’re listening to the Jewish side that was defeated. In listening to Jesus and the apostles we’re listening to the Jewish side that prevailed.

 

[Jay Ross]

There was no misquoting. The Jewish language experts who translated the Hebrew into Greek did so centuries before Christianity began. You’ve allowed @Eliyahu613 to blind you.

We all need to be careful of every translation, (or another person's understanding), of the source texts into any language, particularly the LXX translation, as it reflects the flawed understanding of the Hebrew scholars/ Rabis of that time. My understanding is that the 70 "scholars" that were locked away had been trained by one Rabi and the 70 translators all reflected his understanding of the scriptures at that time.

For example, the translation of Genesis 13:15 gives the wrong understanding/impression of God's promise to give a portion of the earth to Abraham and to Abraham's descendant as a possession for a period of time where the end point of the time period was beyond their ability to comprehend. However, Stephen in Acts 7:5 stated, "God gave him, (Abraham), no inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot on." which the Jewish Scholars listening to him did no dispute.

God is drawing you @PanInVietnam to Himself so that you can know Him and have a loving relationship with God and come to know God's purposes for your ongoing life. Let no one person get in your way of your developing relationship with God.

Remember that God is also drawing @Eliyahu613 to Himself and is wanting to embrace him in His love for him such that he will know God's peace in his life, but that he is resisting the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at this present moment and that he is lashing out at others who are genuinely seeking God's face to form a one on one relationship with God.

May you @PanInVietnam know God's peace in your life and learn to trust Him from now onwards.

Shalom

 

[Matthias]

We all need to be careful of every translation, (or another person's understanding), of the source texts into any language, particularly the LXX translation, as it reflects the flawed understanding of the Hebrew scholars/ Rabis of that time. My understanding is that the 70 "scholars" that were locked away had been trained by one Rabi and the 70 translators all reflected his understanding of the scriptures at that time.

For example, the translation of Genesis 13:15 gives the wrong understanding/impression of God's promise to give a portion of the earth to Abraham and to Abraham's descendant as a possession for a period of time where the end point of the time period was beyond their ability to comprehend. However, Stephen in Acts 7:5 stated, "God gave him, (Abraham), no inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot on." which the Jewish Scholars listening to him did no dispute.

God is drawing you @PanInVietnam to Himself so that you can know Him and have a loving relationship with God and come to know God's purposes for your ongoing life. Let no one person get in your way of your developing relationship with God.

Remember that God is also drawing @Eliyahu613 to Himself and is wanting to embrace him in His love for him such that he will know God's peace in his life, but that he is resisting the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at this present moment and that he is lashing out at others who are genuinely seeking God's face to form a one on one relationship with God.

May you @PanInVietnam know God's peace in your life and learn to trust Him from now onwards.

Shalom

All translations have strengths and weaknesses. The LXX is no exception. Caution is warranted with every translation.

Matthew and the early church believed the verse in question in the LXX was translated correctly by the Jewish scholars. Do you agree or disagree with Matthew and the early church? Do you believe, as they did, in the virgin birth of the Messiah?