LegionOnomaMoi

Did you not bother to read my last response to you, in which I answered your question about this (where and how many times is Matt 1:16 altered)? Theodoret claims that Tatian didn't utilize Matthew's geneaology. However, our manuscripts (B & E) of the arabic version include Matthew's geneaology at the end of the Diatessaron. Both read "Jesus the Messiah" (no called).

(Also, mss A gives both Lukan and Matthean, but in the midst of the text. Still no "called" though).

stephan huller

Just open the Arabic Diatessaron, the Codex Fuldensis, Ephrem's Commentary or look at my last post (somewhere) where I demonstrate that in Irenaeus's Matthew we read 1:1 and then 1:18. The reading is unusual because you wouldn't expect Matthew's Christology to be dependent on 'people calling' Jesus the Christ. Christhood comes from God. God doesn't have opinion.

stephan huller

I was just reading a study of Irenaeus's use of Matthew. While it recognizes that his citations jump from 1:1 to 1:18, the author thinks that because Irenaeus makes reference to Jesus's descent from David when tackling the Ebionites this 'must' be a reference to Matthew's genealogy. The reality as I have already shown elsewhere is that Luke was understood to be the 'last word' on 'the rule of truth' by Irenaeus. He holds up Luke as an opponent of all the heresies - the Marcionites, Ebionites, Valentinians etc.

What I am thinking now is what a gospel universe looks like with only Luke's genealogy and Matthew created subsequent to Luke. Could there be a reason why Matthew had to be created? Again I think it was Julius Africanus who added the material to the text (or he knew who did).

maryhelena

:huh:

Cherry-picking, Earl, cherry-picking....

EarlDoherty

Sorry, maryhelena, but pointing out the difference between two ideas when someone else confuses the two or fails to realize any difference between them is not cherry-picking.

And your sophomoric line above does not constitute a counter-argument to anything I've said. It simply demonstrates your continuing lack of understanding.

Once again, I find you impossible to deal with, let alone to have a rational discussion with. I will go back to ignoring you.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Deciding which part of a phrase one wants to keep and which part to discard - that is cherry-picking in my book...whatever the justification one wants to put forward for so doing...

Yes, Earl, you and I have been at logger-heads for well over 10 years now - oh, well......

Solo

Stephan, to my mind the issue of the Josephan usage of "ho legomenos" in Ant. 20.200 is not whether it is amply attested with other names in the corpus, but whether it is meaningful when used with "Christos" in place of a family name. If the reference is genuine, it would presuppose the general reader of Josephus to understand the moniker the way Christians did, i.e. a reference to the Nazarene Jesus. I am just not convinced that the identifier "ho legomenos Christos" used to point to a definite historical individual would have been meaningful to the presumed Josephan readership. And that stands quite apart from Josephus' acknowledged antipathy to the messianic claims he was aware of.

Perhaps, David's time would have been better spent searching for Josephan usage of "Christos".


Best,
Jiri

Iskander

In the Iliad Agamemnon son of Atreus is given the family name of Atrides which is also the family name of his brother Menelaus. They are known collectively as Atridae.


For a quisling writing in Greek to please his Latin masters the family name of Jesus son of Hashem is Hashemides and both together-- Joshua Ben Hashem and James-- would have been called Hashemidae.Flavius would have used either Hashemides or Joshus ben Hashem if echoing Christian beliefs or Joshua ben Joseph as a polite pagan or Joshua ben Panthera as an impolite pagan


A Christian author would say Christ.

DCHindley

MH,

I'd say it is not impossible. The disagreement of many is that Legomenou can be translated as both "so-called" and as "called." If "so-called christ" was meant, then either Josephus or an interpolator (say, a copyist) would be indicating his disapproval of such a title.

If it was Josephus, then it strengthens the argument that this "Jesus" was negatively described previously. That might make sense of Origen saying that "even though Josephus did not accept that Jesus was the christ, he nevertheless came close to the truth in saying ...". However, there is no tradition in Christian circles that Josephus actually spoke negatively of Jesus, or even relayed that Jesus claimed to be the christ.

If the term is from Josephus, it would be against his normal use, as the only other place the word christos is used is to describe the plaster used to cover the roof of the temple. He uses related words a lot, like chrism and the verb Chrio to describe to describe the anointing of, or the anointed status of, priests and kings, who receive some sort of sacred charge to duty. Josephus deftly disassociates the term christos from prophetic speculations. He had told Vespasian that HE was the person so designated by the Jewish sacred writings to rule "about that time." He COULD have called Vespasian God's anointed, as did "Isaiah" in the case of Cyrus the Great (45:1), but deliberately did not do so.

If a copyist added the term "legomenou christou", whether it was meant to have the meaning of "so-called christ" or simply "Jesus called christ", he may have just been stating his own opinion as to who this Jesus referred to was. In the circles of the copyist, "christos" could be a title for Jesus of the Gospels, or a technical term for an "anointed" High Priest (say, Jesus son of Gamalas) or one that was destined to be a High Priest (say, Jesus son of Damneus).

There were a couple of cases where it did seem to mean "so-called" such as in "a city so called" where a town is called a polis (city) even though it lacks a proper Greek constitution that goes with the name. Some of the Macedonian kings of Egypt and Syria often had nicknames such as Eukairos ("well timed", as in "just in the nick of time") accompanied by legomenos.

DCH

DCHindley

Josephus:
Ant. 8:137 (anointed with plaster);
18:63 (the Christ);
20:200 (called Christ)

In the LXX/OldGreek:
Lev. 4:5, 4:16; 6:15; 21:10, 12;
1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 12:3, 5; 16:6; 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23;
2 Sam. 1:14, 16; 2:5; 19:22; 22:51; 23:1;
1 Chr. 16:22;
2 Chr. 6:42; 22:7;
2 Ma. 1:10;
Ps. 2:2; 17:51; 19:7; 27:8; 83:10; 88:39, 52; 104:15; 131:10, 17;
Odes 3:10; 4:13; 14:14, 27;
Sir. 46:19;
Ps. Sol. 17:32; 18:1, 5, 7;
Amos 4:13;
Hab. 3:13;
Isa. 45:1;
Lam. 4:20;
Dan-OG 9:26;
Dan-Theodotion 9:25

DCH