IamJoseph

Yes, I understand it denotes man and/or human, but this is a subjective view, and varied from its original context. There it means a particular life form distinction, told from the transcendent Creator's point of view.

I wonder if this appears in other scriptures, but in this case the Hebrew author appears to take his writings very seriously and to a highly developed treshold, making its dialogue inclined from the Creator's vantage point. It is a weird grammatical stance: the writer is talking about the Creator talking about the writer and all humans, whereby the writer is assuming to know the Creator's POV - from the writer's POV. It is different from a writer writing a script or stageplay, because the writer here is both the writer and the subject in the story.

IamJoseph

I suspected this dating, that is why it seems doubtful the latin was taken directly from the Hebrew. I think the Romans had much knowledge of the Septuagint via the Greeks. The Romans and the New Christians never spoke Hebrew - in fact this language was barred in Europe after 70 CE, and the Hebrews never spoke Latin.

IamJoseph

The Talmud was completed in 5th/6th Century, and thus it would include latin words, which was the language of the ruling world empire. Basically, my interest is who wrote the Gospels, and why would the Romans not be the first candidate here.

show_no_mercy

By 400 CE, it's nonsensical to talk about "new" Christians. Jerome apparently learned Hebrew on his own with some help from a Jew who had converted to Christianity - plus he got his version of the Septuagint from Symmachus the Ebionite, who (I'm assuming) spoke both Hebrew and Greek.

I don't understand why you think that people 2,000 years ago were unable to pick up a new language, and why you think that if someone is a "European" then they are automatically ignorant of Hebrew. Even I know some Hebrew, but this doesn't make me Jewish (and I'm most certainly not a "European").

Lugubert

Why would the writer in this isolated case use the standard formula in a special way? Do you have any other arguments for "subjective" and "varied from its original context" than that it fits your theology?

IamJoseph

We have no proof a Hebrew Gospels ever existed - not even a fragment or an indication this was ever written by the Hebrews - it is an unacceptable anomoly, considering this period when writings were commonplace. We have no proof the Gospels was initiated before 174 CE - not even a fragment or any indication this existed. If the pursuit of truth is based on historical evidence, rather than belief, then the fundamental things apply.

IamJoseph

If you know of a similar 'standard formula' elsewhere, then I will be corrected, whereby the writer is dialogueing in the third person and he is in the subject block.

Sure. Normally, a writings says, 'AND THE LORD SAID SUCH & SUCH'...this is the normative mode.

show_no_mercy

Why are you bringing up a "Hebrew gospel"? What does this have to do with Jerome translating the Hebrew OT into Latin?

Sheshbazzar

Don't mind 'ol Joseph, he is just busy with weaving yet another עבת with which to hang himself.
Provide him plenty of material, and he will use it to do the rest.

IamJoseph

If the Gospels is said to have been written by Jews - where is the Hebrew Gospels? Would you not ask this if you found a Hebrew document which said all Latin Romans were sons of the Devil and they conspired to kill your lord? - would you not ask why the genocide of over a million Latin Romans occured - and not even mentioned in that document, when it occured in their midst? No sir - you would. So go ahead and make your day - tell me those are not valid questions.