Dear Saint Iaint,
Thank you for translating the Greek here.
Like you said, more correctly, it says: "Saul, or Paulus outside the synagogue," instead of "Saul, Paulus or outside the synagogue". What it says about St Paul is discernable from the New Testament, except I guess when he was born.
From Google Translate:
~~~ ~~~ ~~~
The term law is meant first of the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses as a covenant. Agreement between loving Him and His people. With the passage of time came and many other provisions, which were attributed to the legislator Moses and recorded in the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch. The law was necessary to educate the people, who would be prepared to accept the Messiah and Christ's kingdom.
At the time of Jesus, even before the law and served as preparation for the best. The opposite was done. The scribes and Pharisees as interpreters of the law had created additional numerous other provisions and the smallest details of life.
They had neglected the most important (justice, mercy, purity of heart), and stifle the people in meaningless things. Thus the law with these provisions ended unbearable yoke.
(...) Saul, Paulus or outside the synagogue, was born in Tarsus of Cilicia between 5 and 15 AD His parents were Jews from the tribe of Benjamin. The upbringing was strict in the religious Jewish circle with a deep awareness of gender and national Jewish world. He studied Law in Jerusalem, near Gamaliel the Elder. Became a fanatical persecutor of Christianity and the martyrdom of Stephen was a young man who was holding the clothes lithovoliston.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~
A little rough... but it gets the point across.
Also, I disagree that it says "His parents were Hebrews". It says specifically and clearly that they were Judeans or Jews, whichever is the correct translation. Otherwise your personal translation is OK. I don't know what lithovoliston means, but it seems like it has to do with the clothes. Lithos is related to rocks, and a volley of shots is a round of shots, so it seems like the phrase with "lithovoliston" means Paul was holding the clothes of the "stone-throwers."
It appears to me you are right when you write:
About the last paragraph in the portion you posted above... I personally would rather see it translated it this way:
"(...) Saul, or Paulus outside the synagogue, was born in Tarsus of Cilicia between 5 and 15 AD. His parents were Hebrews from the tribe of Benjamin. His upbringing was strict in the religious Pharisaic circles (coming up) with a deep awareness of gender and national Judahite culture. He studied Law in Jerusalem, near Gamaliel the Elder. Became a fanatical persecutor of Christianity and (participated in?) the martyrdom of Stephen was a young man who was holding the clothes lithovoliston." (I have no clue what 'lithovoliston' means... Anyone?)
In Paul's time... there were no such words as 'Jews' or 'Jewish'. There were Judahites like Paul (and Jesus), then there were Judeans - many of whom were not Judahites or Israelites at all.
Neither Paul nor Jesus were Judeans.
The word 'Judeans' in the New Testament was eventually translated into English as 'Jews'... AND the word 'Judahite' from the OT was ALSO translated into English as 'Jews'.
Judahites were people who were descended from the last Israelite kingdom of Judah (including tribal Judahites, Benjamites and Levites), as well as non-Israelite citizens of that kingdom. If you had lived in Judah - you would have been a Judahite. But just because you were a Judahite (as in a citizen of the kingdom of Judah) obviously that did not make you a tribal Israelite.
And Judeans were not necessarily Judahites or Israelites either... The Greek historian Strabo said that in Christ's time many (if not the majority) of Judeans ('Jews') were actually racially Edomites... not Israelites at all.
The Benjamites (like St. Paul) were considered Judahites because they were a part of the Southern kingdom of Judah - not Judea as opposed to the Northern kingdom of Israel.
Except that I think that strictly speaking, Judahites simply meant the people of the Tribe of Judah, and that the term has an expanded meaning, because people from the Tribe of Benjamin later lived in the Kingdom of Judah, and the term Judahite could include them.
And except that Apostolos translated one of the phrases better: "deep awareness of the differences between the Judahite and National (meaning heathen, goy) culture"
I'm wondering now if you could tell me the precise meaning of these words
Here they are:
I'm just having a hard time with these ones... Which one means 'Judahite' as in of the tribe or kingdom of Judah <not Judea> (as described above)? Which one means Judean?
It appears each word has the rootword "Judae-". For example #9 says Judaea. I'm sorry, I don't see the difference you're looking for.
Apostolos pointed out that the word "Judahite" in Greek has a "k" where the "h" is in English, which makes it distinguishable from the word Judean.
You're right that: "Judean and Judahite are not synonymous. Additionally, neither Judean or Judahite are synonymous with 'Hebrew'"
I somewhat disagree with your words in parentheses: "Additionally, neither Judean or Judahite are synonymous with 'Hebrew' (as in the race of the person of Jesus Christ - though that seems to be what most people think)...
, because (1) Jesus Christ was also from the tribe of Judah, so it seems better to say "the race of the Judahites" to make it clearer, and (2) Hebrew isn't necessarily a "race". Rather, "Hebrew" can simply refer to one group of the Semitic peoples, which includes Arabs for example. In such a case, Hebrews are only part of the Semitic race.
Further, there is some confusion about the term Hebrew.
Genesis 14:13(JPS) says: "And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew--now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite". So it's clear that Abram is a Hebrew in the Scriptures.
The term Hebrew, according to Wikipedia's entry on the word, might come from the Patriarch Eber in the Bible, an ancestor of Abraham:
Eber, an ancestor of Jacob (six generations removed), is a distant ancestor of many people, including the Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Ammonites, Midianites, Qahtanite, Nahorites(including Aramites) and Moabites.
It sounds like you are right that: "One could be a Judean at the turn of the first century without being a Hebrew and earlier, one could have also been a Judahite without being a Hebrew.", but the latter is somewhat doubtful, because it sounds like it would mean a person who had joined the tribe of Judah without being descended from the Patriarch Eber, which is a wide range of descendents.
You wrote: "Paul referred to himself as a Judean... but we know that Paul was from Tarsus. Paul also said: ” For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the (Judeans) I became as a (Judean), that I might win (Judeans);"",
citing 1 Corinthians 9.
It's confusing what he meant if he wasn't a Judean, except that he could mean in my mind that he moved to the province of Judea and became one of them by living there in their culture, like someone can be born in Texas but live in Alaska for a long time. Anyway, it seems to me likely that he was also descended from someone living in the Jewish Kingdom of Judea in the pre-Roman times.
Also, it appears you're right that it "simply isn't true" that "in other words, English Jew=Greek Judean=Hebrew Judahite", because Apostolos showed that Greek has a separate word for Judahite than Judean.
It sounds right when you say:
Many Judeans in New Testament times (even the kings Herod!) were Edomites. That is - these 'Judeans' were children of Esau... In other words - they were definitely not tribal Judahites. Yet they were called 'Judeans'. Which means in English - they are called 'Jews'! But clearly they were not 'Jews' in the sense that most people ascribe to the word 'Jews' today.
Except that I don't remember reading elsewhere that "(even the kings Herod!) were Edomites. That is - these 'Judeans' were children of Esau...", so I have some doubt about this.
Plus, if they belonged to the 1st century BC Kingdom of Judea, and practiced pre-Christian Judaism like I assumed the Herods did, then even if they weren't descended from Judah, I somewhat disagree that "they were not 'Jews' in the sense that most people ascribe to the word 'Jews' today", because I think people understand the term to refer to the people of Judah or followers of Judaism. If they merely belonged to the 1st century BC Kingdom of Judea, which followed pre-Christian Judaism, then I think people would feel that they were only Jews in a weak way, like say an illegal immigrant or foreign-born US permanent resident being American.
I disagree with your proposal that people should
just go with ‘Jews’ (as in those who claim to worship the God of Israel – but who reject Jesus as the Christ - the vast majority of whom <which are 'religious'> are Talmudic) and Hebrews (people who are actually descended from Middle Eastern Hebrews/tribal Judahites).
, because in the paradigm you would create, you deprive Christians and nonreligious persons descended from the tribe of Judah of their true ethnic identity.
Jesus himself said that "salvation is of the Jews." You might try to argue that terminology is confusing between Judahites and Judeans. but the term "Jew" began as a reference to the people of Judah, and it should stay that way. An expanded definition is possible too, to include the people of Judaea, which was a 1st-century BC- 1st century AD Kingdom and Roman Province.
But in my mind, the clearest wording is to simply refer to descendants of the tribe of Judah as Jews, followers of Judaism as Judaists, and descendants of Judea as Judaeans.
For all the dislike that you appear to show of people who simply follow Judaism and for whatever personal reason haven't affirmatively accepted Jesus, your definition:
‘Jews’ (as in those who claim to worship the God of Israel – but who reject Jesus as the Christ - the vast majority of whom <which are 'religious'> are Talmudic)
, is actually an anti-Christian definition, because it would mean that only a person of the broad Judeo-Christian tradition-including many deists- who rejected Jesus would be the only real "Jew."
Such a definition would actually be "anti-Semitic" in the classical sense because it would deprive the Jewish people of their ethnic identity. Such a definition even contradicts classical Judaism, because at least Maimonaides had a list of positive requirements for followers of Judaism that went beyond simply "worshipping the God of Israel", like accepting the resurrection.
You are right that as to the number of tribes, "Technically there were thirteen. Rather than Josephites, there were two tribes named for Joseph’s sons: Ephraim and Manasseh."
However, it could also be said that there were "12 tribes", and that one of the tribes was made of two sub-tribes. Or it could be said that there were 12 tribes at least until Joseph had two sons.
I disagree when you write: ”I’m not sure that is actually what Wikipedia said... But no – Judea is not the Greek word for Judah."
Wikipedia's entry on Judea says that the two words are the same in Hebrew, and also in Greek:
Judea or Judæa (from the Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh "Tribe of Judah", Greek: Ιουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudaea) was the name of the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל Eretz Yisrael) from the 8th century BCE (Assyrian rule)
I'm sorry I don't know "where - if anywhere – the word Ἰουδαϊκός (or one of its derivatives indicating definite Judahite lineage) can be found in the Bible (O.T. or New)", although I did a brief search on Google, and it also seems to me as you write:
"It seems to me that where the tribes are listed and we see the words ‘Benjamite’, ’Gadite’, etc for the tribes of Benjamin and Gad... we should also see the word ‘Judahite’ to represent those of Judah."Your profile says:
"Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada".
Did you join the church?Kind Regards.
Thanks for mentioning that "As for the mosaic of Paul, I'm 100% sure it's in Ravenna". The mosaic has an authentic feel to it about St. Paul.
Also, I believe you that:
"Stone-casters" (obviously referring to St. Stephens death); Paul was holding the clothes of the stone-casters who killed st Stephen the first-martyr
Thank you for your translation of the paragraph. Good job.
Plus, you made a good explanation that:
"You are looking for the adjective Ἰουδαϊκός (masc.), Ἰουδαϊκὴ (fem.), Ἰουδαϊκό (neut.). Again depending on the context, 'Judahite' is either masculine, feminine or neuter, e.g. Judahite tribe is Ἰουδαϊκὴ (feminine) φυλὴ because tribe in Greek is a feminine noun. The Judahite Kingdom is Ἰουδαϊκὸ (neuter) Βασίλειο because Kingdom in Greek is a neuter noun, etc."Regards.
That's a pretty silver Torah case you showed. It is nice having you on the forum.Shalom.