Was Jesus Tribal? Matthew 15: 21-28

[pandabear]

Supposedly, the New Living Translation is the best and most accurate.

[Ghost]

.

[Moretorque]

I think Jesus was a real person but as far as the teachings in the 2nd book I think most of it was made up from hear.

[Adama]

Okay, the Book of Matthew is geared more towards the Jews of that time who were supposed to believe on Jesus. In other words, it is written more so that the Jews of that time could get saved.

[pandabear]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century. This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an increasingly Gentile phenomenon evolving in time into a separate religion. The Christian community to which Matthew belonged, like many 1st-century Christians, were still part of the larger Jewish community: hence the designation Jewish Christian to describe them. The relationship of Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject of study and contention, the principal question being to what extent, if any, Matthew's community had cut itself off from its Jewish roots. Certainly there was conflict between Matthew's group and other Jewish groups, and it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the Matthew community's belief in Jesus as the Messiah and authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority.

The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest in the empire, is often mentioned). Unlike Mark, he never bothers to explain Jewish customs, since his intended audience was a Jewish one; unlike Luke, who traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews; of his three presumed sources only "M", the material from his own community, refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order; and the content of "M" suggests that this community was strict in keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in "righteousness" (adherence to Jewish law). Writing from within a Jewish-Christian community growing increasingly distant from other Jews and becoming increasingly Gentile in its membership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his vision "of an assembly or church in which both Jew and Gentile would flourish together".

[pandabear]

But logically, the earliest versions like the KJV should be the most accurate.

Nope

http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgi ... 102/bt.htm

...Best Choice for Serious Bible Study:

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The NRSV is an extremely accurate translation, faithful to the earliest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (HB/OT) and the Greek New Testament (NT). It is fairly literal and is the translation most often quoted by a wide variety of biblical scholars (Evangelicals, Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Jews, secular historians, etc.) in the top academic publications. It uses gender inclusive language where the grammar and/or context supports it. If you want it in a Study Bible edition, the best choices are The HarperCollins Study Bible (2d ed.) or The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3d ed.). Both try to present the best of historical-critical biblical scholarship in an objective way. The more concise and economical Access Bible from Oxford is also a good academic Study Bible....

Unacceptable for Serious Bible Study:

The following translations have serious shortcomings of various sorts:

1) The King James Version (KJV) or The New King James Version (NKJV). The KJV was a great literal translation in its day, but that day was the 17th century! Many earlier and more accurate biblical manuscripts were discovered afterwards and most modern translations—including those produced by very conservative Christians—are based on them. The NKJV updates some of the 17th century language, and I like its literalness, but most of the time it relies on the same late and less accurate manuscripts that were available to the KJV translators in the 17th century....

2) The New International Version (NIV)....

3) Today's New International Version (TNIV)....

4) All mainly "dynamic/functional equivalency" versions...