stephan huller

really toto, in the case of Simon and peter. Is anyone certain that all Christian groups acknowledged Simon as cephas or simon as Peter or Peter as cephas or was all of this hearsay?

Toto

It's all hearsay. But the term legomenos appears to be used just as an identifier.

spin

It's appears to be a neutral statement of fact, as "Simon called Peter" is, or "Jesus called Justus" is in Col 4:11, or "Thomas called Didymus" in Jn 21:2. And if καλουμενος is synonymous then there are some other examples.

I don't see the use of λεγομενος is particularly odd. What is your beef with its usage as a commonly used neutral means of providing a name?

stephan huller

Clement would say zacchaeus who was called matthew. But is this a fact? Or was it tradition or hearsay? I think the gospel writers were compiling traditions and had weaker traditions than we realize

stephan huller

You would not expect a believer to think that Jesus's christhood was dependent on men. Jesus is not the Christ in the way judas was called the twin or dositheus was called son of x

stephan huller

We think Jesus was called the Christ according to hearsay. It is surprising when an evangelist says it

stephan huller

Matthew 1:16 is not included in the diatessaron

spin

That's not as clear as you present it. I'd say Paul certainly uses "christ" at times as a name, eg 1 Cor 1:23.

stephan huller

But he's not an apostle "according to men"

spin

:huh:

Why did you say that? What is it in response to?