stephan huller

I dont think it has anything to do with whether it is used as a name. I think legomenos is used to attempt to connect names which werent universally accepted. Did any Semite use thoma as a proper name? Of course not. legomenos would be appropriate. What's an Iscariot?

stephan huller

He's not called an apostle. He is an apostle.

stephan huller

Simon wasnt acknowledged as Peter by everyone

stephan huller

These name relationship are all hearsay. To smooth over disagreement legomenos is used.

spin

I have some sympathy with this general idea. A person having two names could as easily be two people who have been reduced to one. It is not though--as I see it--a reflection on λεγομενος.

We are working with a Greek text which evinces a Greek tradition. Asking about what any Semite did in this respect is going beyond the text. The text indicates that "Thomas" was a name, as it does with "Iscariot". That "Thomas" has a meaning in Aramaic may be as relevant as your name meaning "crown" in Greek. Not.

That supports christ as a name.

LegionOnomaMoi

Interesting, considering:
You went out of your way to correct me, but you didn't even bother to make sure your usage was correct. It was wrong. Just like your usage of markedness, your application of constituent analysis ("bracketing") and so forth.
The relation is in the genitive (how is this still difficult?) That's why Viti (among others) calls it a genitive of kinship. In examples such as this:

The genitive is postposed.

Same with this:

This, according to Brugmann, an underlying preposed genitive structure

Postposed
Because you have no clue what you are talking about, and after the first time I debated with you (and got nothing but smug dismissals) I don't have the patience to politely respond to your vindicitive rhetoric (yes, I know my Shakespeare). You want people to take your word that AJ 20.200 is "marked", but your use of the theory is not only flawed, it contradicts the underlying point of it's use in analysis. If this weren't enough, you combine it with a constituent "bracketing" that enables you to to make baseless claims about "strutural" differences between the examples I give and AJ 20.200, except that this linguistic tradition (the combinatorial formalism of Chomsky) is diametrically opposed to the functionalist use of markedness you apply. Even better, you don't even bother to use modern generative theories when applying your "structural" analysis. But rather than admit ages ago that you were out of your depth here, you plodded on, insisting on applying "markedness" and combining it with naive and outdated transformationlist crap, and you expect me not to call you on it? Especially when you've been using "linguistics" to bulster and bully for years?

spin

You're a piece of work.

[hr=1]50[/hr]

For the rest of the readers, who I'm sure are long-suffering if there are any, this is LegionOnomaMoi's example:

"In this phrase, the genitive is postposed
(7) duo paidia andron epichorion
Two chilrden of the local people" (p. 211).

The bold indicates the genitive which is postposed, ie, here, it follows "two children", whereas andron epichorion duo paidia would be preposed.

In each case that follows a form of αδελφος is the noun that interests us and is comparable with the "two children" in the preceding example.

Αντιοχος ο Σελευκου αδελφος
Antiochus Seleucus's brother

With ο Σελευκου αδελφος the genitive Σελευκου is preposed.

Σιμων και Ιωναθης αδελφοι του Ιουδα
Simon and Jonathan brothers of Judah

With αδελφοι του Ιουδα the genitive του Ιουδα is postposed.

Yet with LegionOnomaMoi black is white and white is black.

aa5874

It is clear that in Antiquities of the Jews that Josephus used the phrase who was called over 40 times so it expected than an interpolator would use the SAME phrase to introduce Jesus Christ.

We would NOT expect the interpolator to write "the brother of Jesus Christ BECAUSE that is NOT how Josephus would have written the phrase.

LegionOnomaMoi's argument is COMPLETELY illogical when he claims that Christian writers did NOT use or hardly used the phrase Jesus who was called Christ so could NOT have forged AJ 20.9.1

LegionOnomaMoi ought to have known that an Interpolator, in order to AVOID detection, would use phrases found in Antiquities of the Jews and NOT phrases found in Non-Josephan sources.

In effect, based on linguistics alone, the phrase" the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ in AJ 20.9.1 could have been written by Josephus or an Interpolator.

An interpolator would have been expected to have STUDIED the phrases used by Josephus BEFORE he begins his manipulation process.

These are some of the passages found in Antiquities of the Jews which an Interpolator should have carefully examined.

maryhelena

Indeed, Earl, the case for interpolation is a weak one. Even aa is admitting, in the above post, that linguistics allows for either Josephus or interpolation. Claiming an interpolation, for some ahistoricist/mythicists, is a result of that position - the ahistoricists position. In other words; if there is no historical JC - then Josephus cannot have been making any reference to such a figure - therefore we are dealing with a Josephan interpolation. Simple reasoning. But that simple reasoning overlooks the possibility, the linguistic possibility, that Josephus did write these words - but that these words are not supporting a historical JC at all (since there is none such) - Josephus is supporting the ahistoricist/mythicist position.

I suggest that those ahistoricists/mythicists that are holding out for interpolation reconsider their position. I suggest they consider the possibility that Josephus wrote these words in support of the gospel JC storyboard - a storyboard that is not historical. Yes, these words, "called Christ" can be used to give a veneer of historicity for JC - but linguistics is not the final arbitrator in this debate.

Some ahistoicists/mythicist need to stop banging their heads against Josephus - its a loosing battle. Instead they should be attempting to face the prospect that Josephus could yet be their trump card...

stephan huller

I don't know why this becomes 'try to convince spin of applying the common use of word legomenos' to New Testament passages. Here are all the legomenos uses in the NT:

Matthew 1:16 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός
NAS: was born, who is called the Messiah.
KJV: Jesus, who is called Christ.
INT: Jesus who is called Christ

1. Matthew 10:2 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος καὶ
NAS: Simon, who is called Peter,
KJV: Simon, who is called Peter, and
INT: Simon who is called Peter and

2. Matthew 26:14 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: δώδεκα ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης
NAS: of the twelve, named Judas
KJV: of the twelve, called Judas
INT: twelve who being called Judas Iscariot

3. Matthew 27:33 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: Κρανίου Τόπος λεγόμενος
NAS: which means Place
KJV: that is to say, a place of a skull,
INT: of a skull place called

4. Mark 15:7 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ
NAS: The man named Barabbas had been
KJV: there was [one] named Barabbas,
INT: moreover the [one] called Barabbas with

5. Luke 22:47 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: καὶ ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς
NAS: a crowd [came], and the one called Judas,
KJV: and he that was called Judas,
INT: and he who was called Judas one

6. John 4:25 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός ὅταν
NAS: is coming (He who is called Christ);
KJV: cometh, which is called Christ: when
INT: is coming who is called Christ when

John 9:11 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: ἄνθρωπος ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς πηλὸν
NAS: The man who is called Jesus
KJV: said, A man that is called Jesus made
INT: man called Jesus clay

7. John 11:16 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος τοῖς
INT: Thomas called Didymus to the

8. John 20:24 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: δώδεκα ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος οὐκ
NAS: of the twelve, called Didymus,
KJV: of the twelve, called Didymus, was
INT: twelve the [one] called Didymus not

9. John 21:2 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος καὶ
NAS: and Thomas called Didymus,
KJV: and Thomas called Didymus, and
INT: Thomas called Didymus and

10. Colossians 4:11 V-PPM/P-NMS
BIB: Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰοῦστος οἱ
NAS: and [also] Jesus who is called Justus;
KJV: Jesus, which is called Justus, who
INT: Jesus called Justus the

None of these passages helps the argument that Matthew 1:16 means 'Jesus is the Christ.'

Starting with 10 - these personal salutations were never a part of the Marcionite collection so not present in Paul. Here's my honest opinion. I think gospels as they now stand were artificially developed to mask the contradictions which existed up until the end of the second century (and exemplified in Clement's text). There may well have been a proto-Matthew, proto-Mark etc. But the editor of the canon used one exemplar for many of these stories and then said 'how can I make Matthew a little different but close enough that people will believe that one spirit is flowing through all.'

So it was that Mark has no use of legomenos and Matthew does:

Mark 3 - Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Matthew 10 - esus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

The lists are related but since there was no perfect rule about any who the Twelve actually were he used legomenos as his 'go to variation' to replace the idea that Jesus named Peter. The reason is that before this there was no definitive list of apostles or names. The Marcionites had one list, the Gospel of the Hebrews another. Now we have small variation but it wasn't as completely embarrassing as before.

The 'Judas Iscariot' invention is to distinguish 'bad Judas' from Judas the twin the 'good Judas' of the eastern Empire and Edessa. legomenos is again his 'got to variation.' Judas Iscariot is a corruption of something. No idea what it meant.

Have you ever had to make up letters of endorsement? I have. It is incredibly difficult to try and say the same thing five different ways. Enter legomenos in

Matthew 27:33
They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
Matthew 27:32-34 (in Context) Matthew 27 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Mark 15:22
They brought Jesus to the place translated Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
Mark 15:21-23 (in Context) Mark 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Luke 23:33
When they came to the place called (kaloumenon) the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left.
Luke 23:32-34 (in Context) Luke 23 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
John 19:16-18 (in Context) John 19 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

This is the crazy one. Clearly all these reports come from the same source. It can't be that four different versions tell the same story. But all use different terminology to explain the critical name of the place where it happened. This is amazing. Again this demonstrates legomenos as one of his go to variation. One editor changed an original template four different ways.

Certainly Luke-Acts likes kaloumenos but this is not an argument against a single author. I think Luke tells at the beginning he is in possession of many gospels.