Originally Posted by Toto

The words are those of the author of the gospel of Matthew, not Pilate.

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Chaucer here offers a good counter-argument in favour of the authenticity of the phrase “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The clue rests with the supposition that only the short phrase “called Christ” was interpolated. His argument is rather strong in reference to this. Surely it is not just the short phrase that was interpolated, but allegedly the long phrase “brother of Jesus called the Christ” that was a marginal gloss referring to the name “James”?

It is not a simple gloss that was interpolated, at any rate, since it would have needed some editing. Actually, the total interpolation would amount to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was.” All right, let’s assume for the sake of hypothesis that the whole phrase was interpolated. Who was this James – simply “James that passed by” or perhaps “James so-well-known-that-did-not-need-to-be-introduced”?

That is the reason why the null hypothesis about the original, non-interpolated wording is “the brother of Jesus, whose name was James.” However, the hypothesis highlights the same difficulty for Jesus. Who was this “Jesus” – “Jesus that passed by” or perhaps “Jesus so-well-known-that-did-not-need-to-be-introduced” or maybe “Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest (to be introduced later)”?

Originally Posted by Chaucer

One can well imagine, frankly, that any reasonably intelligent author is not going to put into any character's mouth a turn of phrase that is especially unsuited to him. If this turn of phrase is unsuited to Pilate, why put it there? Whether or not one views the author(s) of Matthew as chronicling or novelizing, the image of Pilate saying something unsuited to him is still equally clumsy and implausible to contemporaries.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

One can well imagine, frankly, that any reasonably intelligent author is not going to put into any character's mouth a turn of phrase that is especially unsuited to him. If this turn of phrase is unsuited to Pilate, why put it there? Whether or not one views the author(s) of Matthew as chronicling or novelizing, the image of Pilate saying something unsuited to him is still equally clumsy and implausible to contemporaries.

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Pilate doesn't appear in Matthew until chapter 27. I said the phrase "Jesus called Christ" is written on the 16th line of the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

One can well imagine, frankly, that any reasonably intelligent author is not going to put into any character's mouth a turn of phrase that is especially unsuited to him. If this turn of phrase is unsuited to Pilate, why put it there? Whether or not one views the author(s) of Matthew as chronicling or novelizing, the image of Pilate saying something unsuited to him is still equally clumsy and implausible to contemporaries.

...

Originally Posted by Toto

The character of Pilate in the gospels is completely at variance with the his character in Philo and Josephus, to the point that later Christians turned Pilate into a secret Christian sympathizer and made his wife a saint.

No one contends that the gospels were written by contemporaries of Pilate in any case.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...

But the (quite distasteful) virtual canonization of Pilate is not under full swing until John, with Luke already showing some signs of it. Even the big show of washing his hands of the blood seems presented by the writer(s) as an essentially unsympathetic and hypocritical act on Pilate's part. So it's obviously not meant to excite sympathy.

Bottom line: Pilate is meant to remain a pretty poor specimen of humanity in the Matthew account. Thus, his using "legomenou" remains a neutral verbal gesture at best.

Chaucer

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Of course, I know that. And that doesn't change it's also appearing in Pilate's mouth in chapter 27. Once "legomenou" is in the mix, the expression becomes a virtual all-purpose turn of phrase that could easily appear in anyone's mouth, from a worshipful Gospel author's to a Pilate's -- or a Josephus's.

Chaucer

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So what exactly is your point? You're saying that "Α λεγομενου Β" is a phrase of disinterest. When Matthew is recounting Jesus' lineage showing that he's the seed of David, is he being "disinterested"?

Originally Posted by Toto

I would disagree. Pilate is just "the governor" in Matt. His wife has a prophetic dream, and he plays his role in the drama. All the moral blame is put on "the Jews." Jesus' blood is on them and their descendants, not on Pilate or the Romans.