Jezus to Jesos

[Gość: jan]

Jezus to Jesos po grecku i Jezuz to jest popularne imie w Grecji do dnia
dzisiejszego. Chrystus to z greckiego Kristos (mesjarz) bo originalny nowy
testament byl napisany w jezyku greckim. Po polsku Jezus Chrystus to by bylo
Jeremiasz mesjasz. Chrzescijanie to tez pochodzi od tego greckiego slowa
Kristos (mesjarz albo zbawiciel)
Nasza religia zgadza sie ze Jezus urodzil sie zydem i byl zydem do konca swego
zycia. Nowa religia powstala 100 lat po jego smierci.

[Gość: Fredzio]

Jezus z Nazaretu byl Zyd i nie umi niestety Po polsku tylko
po Hebrajsku

[Gość: daniel]

Fredziu, to ty nie bardzo mowisz po polsku, Jezus mowil jezykiem aramejskim, a
wedlug Bibli kazdy mogl go zrozumiec w kazdym jezyku.
Jezus byl czlowiekiem, i dla nas jego nardowosc jest bez znaczenia. Twoje
obywatelstwo ma znaczenie tylko dla Ciebie

[Gość: JAN]

TO JEST PRAWDA PAN JEZUS MOWIL W JEZYKU ARAMICKIM ALE ORYGINALNA EWANGELIA BYLA
NAPISANA 100 LAT PO SMIERCI JEZUSA I TO W JEZYKU GRECKIM. DOPIERO POZNIEJ BYLA
PISANA W JEZYKU LACINSKIM. MY POLACY KATOLICY WIERZYMY W EWANGELII LACINSKIEJ.
CZY TA EWANGELIA LACINSKA JEST TAKA SAMA JAK GRECKA TO CHYBA NIE.
JEZUS TO NIE JEST JAKIES SWIETE IMIE ALE W POLSCE NIKT NIE NAZYWA SIE JEZUS. W
GRECJI IMIE JEZUS JEST BARDZO POPULARNE.

[Gość: ethanol]

Jasiu - no ale co w zwiazku z tym wszystkim ??

Fredziu - ty nie umisz napisac ani jednego sensownego posta to trzym morde w
kuble beduinie jeden

[Gość: HA1]

Jezus mowil po aramejsku. Najstarsza ewangelia wg. Sw Mateusza byla napisana po
hebrajsku. Kilka lat temu zidentyfikowano kopie tej ewangelii w Egipcie gdzie
wszelkie dane wskazuja ze byla tam juz w 40(!) lat po smierci Chrystusa. A wiec
musiala byc napisana jeszcze wczesniej. Po grecku pisal Lukasz.

Gos´c´ portalu: JAN napisa?(a):

> TO JEST PRAWDA PAN JEZUS MOWIL W JEZYKU ARAMICKIM ALE ORYGINALNA EWANGELIA BYLA
>
> NAPISANA 100 LAT PO SMIERCI JEZUSA I TO W JEZYKU GRECKIM. DOPIERO POZNIEJ BYLA
>
> PISANA W JEZYKU LACINSKIM. MY POLACY KATOLICY WIERZYMY W EWANGELII LACINSKIEJ.
>
> CZY TA EWANGELIA LACINSKA JEST TAKA SAMA JAK GRECKA TO CHYBA NIE.
> JEZUS TO NIE JEST JAKIES SWIETE IMIE ALE W POLSCE NIKT NIE NAZYWA SIE JEZUS. W
> GRECJI IMIE JEZUS JEST BARDZO POPULARNE.

[Gość: HA1]

MAKING A GREEK OUT OF YESHU

All of our canonical gospels were written originally in Greek. This is
what everyone in the academe thinks, and everyone in the academe thinks
so because all the evidence points this way, and no evidence indicates
otherwise. And no evidence indicates otherwise because everyone thinks
that anything that might indicate otherwise does not really counts as
evidence?

In spite of the fact that everyone thinks that Yeshu and friends and
most of the earliest Christians all spoke primarily if not exclusively a
Semitic tongue, everyone also thinks that all of our canonical gospels
were authored originally in Greek. Somehow this always seemed a little
doubtful to me; something just didn't make sense here. Well, now that I
looked into this mater for myself, what do we have? There's this highly
intriguing Hebrew gospel of Matthew, as preserved in a medieval work by
Shem-Tob ben-Shaprut, that seems quite early.

George Howard has done a lot of work on this gospel. He published its
first critical edition in 1987, and an updated second edition in 1995.

(Howard, George 1995. Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press.)

Shem-Tob, a Jewish scholar working in Spain, preserved this document in
his polemical treatise EVAN BOHAN that dates to the 14th century. It is
now agreed upon almost universally that Shem-Tob did not make the
translation himself. He received the Hebrew text from some previous
tradents, most likely Jewish. So who prepared the translation, and when?
Or is it really a translation? Maybe it's the real thing? Perhaps it is
the Greek Mt that was the translation from the Hebrew? And what does
this mysterious gospel do to the Synoptic problem, and to the theorising
about the HJ?

After reading Prof. Howard's book, it seems to me that some of the
answers to these questions may lie on the surface, while others still
remain hazy and need more research. Nevertheless, it seems reasonably
clear that the Hebrew text was not the product of some medieval
translator. At least some parts of this text, indeed, seem to go back to
early antiquity.

Shem Tob Ben Yitzach ben-Shaprut transcribed The Hebrew version of
Matthew into his apologetic work Evan Bohan sometime around 1380 C.E.
While the autograph of Shem Tob's Even Bohan has been lost, several mss.
dating between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries still exist.
George Howard states of the Shem Tob version of Matthew:

"...an old substratum to the Hebrew in Shem Tob is a prior
composition, not a translation. The old substratum, however, has
been exposed to a series of revisions so that the present text of
Shem-Tob represents the original only in an impure form."
(The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text;
1987;p.223)

Discussions about this Hebrew Gospel have now taken place on a number of
academic biblical history mailing lists, such as TC-List, and
Crosstalk-L. No serious objections to its antiquity have been presented,
as far as I know.

I have defended the authenticity of HMt in this article to Loisy List (posted
previously to Crosstalk-L, while I was still active there),

www.egroups.com/message/loisy/4

Also here's a few good links about Hebrew Mt.

Here is the list of some of the differences between the standard Greek
text and HMt. This file has been prepared by some Messianic Jews,

www.tirzah.freeserve.co.uk/mathew.html

Here's an excellent short summary prepared by Prof. James D. Tabor,

www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/shemtovweb.html

And here's an article by Prof. Howard, himself, replying to some of the
criticisms of HMt. "A Response to William L. Petersen's Review of Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew", by George Howard,


rosetta.atla-certr.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html

Best wishes,

Yuri.