Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 02-18-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

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"?

Yes, or he would never put "legomenou" in Pilate's mouth 27 chapters later.

Chaucer

So let me get this straight. Matthew is disinterested in Jesus' lineage?

Solo · 02-18-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I think there are two issues with the phrase which together make the Josephan authorship hugely improbable:

1) the author of the Ant. XX phrase transparently tries to identify James by kinship reference to a sibling, which is highly unusual and would work only if the identifying relationship was so well established in the mind of Josephus' intended readership that it displaced all other names under which James was known.

Unsound supposition from lack of acquaintance with Josephus’ style. In addition to “the brother of Jesus,” there are the following like phrases in the same ch.20 of AJ: “Herod, the brother of the deceased Agrippa” (20.1.3), “Herod the brother of Agrippa the great king” (20.5.2), “Felix, the brother of Pallas” (20.7.1), “Germanicus, the brother of Caesar” (20.8.1), “Aaron, the brother of Moses” (20.10.1).

Therefore, it is far from unusual that Josephus introduces someone by reference to a sibling; actually, it is rather usual. And if you may say that both Agrippa, Caesar and Moses were well established in the mind of Josephus’ intended readership, you may not say so of Pallas. Who was this Pallas? There is not the slightest indication that he ever visited Judaea. Hardly was he known to a Jewish audience of the late first century.

As an important administrator of the Empire under two emperors, you need to find a better example. Your examples (of famous siblings) support my contention that James as the brother of "him called Christ" is a dead giveaway.

Quote:

2) 'Christ' or 'Messiah' is so prominently and obviously adorning the cognomen of Jesus that it makes its origin hugely improbable with someone who was not a believer himself. It has been argued lamely by the fundies that the turn of phrase "so-called Christ" is really a mark of disrespect by Josephus and therefore attesting to genuinneness of the passage. In reality, the "Iesous hos legomenos Christos" is a term that comes directly from the gospel of Matthew where it is used twice (1:16 and 27:17), in both cases suggesting a titular cognomen.

This is unsound supposition from lack of acquaintance with Josephus’ religious ideas.

Matthew's repeated use of the term is not a supposition. You need to address it - e.g. by showing one or more examples from the time of Josephus to confirm that this appellation would have understandable to a Jewish audience as singularly identifying the gospel Jesus of Nazareth.

Jiri

show_no_mercy · 02-18-2010, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Unsound supposition from lack of acquaintance with Josephus’ style. In addition to “the brother of Jesus,” there are the following like phrases in the same ch.20 of AJ: “Herod, the brother of the deceased Agrippa” (20.1.3), “Herod the brother of Agrippa the great king” (20.5.2), “Felix, the brother of Pallas” (20.7.1), “Germanicus, the brother of Caesar” (20.8.1), “Aaron, the brother of Moses” (20.10.1).

Therefore, it is far from unusual that Josephus introduces someone by reference to a sibling; actually, it is rather usual. And if you may say that both Agrippa, Caesar and Moses were well established in the mind of Josephus’ intended readership, you may not say so of Pallas. Who was this Pallas? There is not the slightest indication that he ever visited Judaea. Hardly was he known to a Jewish audience of the late first century.

As an important administrator of the Empire under two emperors, you need to find a better example. Your examples (of famous siblings) support my contention that James as the brother of "him called Christ" is a dead giveaway.

So in order for the "brother of Jesus called Christ" to be authentic, the TF also has to be authentic. There's really no separating the two.

Solo · 02-18-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Has it perhaps occurred to you that, on this board, your implicit dismissal as "fundies" of those who argue that the word "legomenos" (called) does show genuine Josephan authorship constitutes a flagrant ad hominem on your part against all atheists here who happen to argue the same? I wonder what the moderators here will say about that...........

Chaucer

It has not occured to me, 'perhaps' or otherwise. BTW, "Fundie" for me is a term of endearment for unfortunates who lack the grasp of fundamentals. :dancy:

Jiri

Chaucer · 02-18-2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Yes, or he would never put "legomenou" in Pilate's mouth 27 chapters later.

Chaucer

So let me get this straight. Matthew is disinterested in Jesus' lineage?

No he is neutral about it. To him, it's a fact. Both neutrality and disinterest apply to his use of "legomenou".

Chaucer

Chaucer · 02-18-2010, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Has it perhaps occurred to you that, on this board, your implicit dismissal as "fundies" of those who argue that the word "legomenos" (called) does show genuine Josephan authorship constitutes a flagrant ad hominem on your part against all atheists here who happen to argue the same? I wonder what the moderators here will say about that...........

Chaucer

It has not occured to me, 'perhaps' or otherwise. BTW, "Fundie" for me is a term of endearment for unfortunates who lack the grasp of fundamentals. :dancy:

Jiri

Yeah, sure. Tell me another. And BTW, what you first said about "fundies" also carries the more general implication that any atheist at all who is an historicist for any reason -- never mind Josephus and the whole "legomenou" question -- is automatically a fundamentalist. I wonder what plenty of atheists here who are historicists for their own reasons would say about that. If that isn't a slur, I'd like to know what is.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 02-18-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

As an important administrator of the Empire under two emperors, you need to find a better example. Your examples (of famous siblings) support my contention that James as the brother of "him called Christ" is a dead giveaway.

So in order for the "brother of Jesus called Christ" to be authentic, the TF also has to be authentic. There's really no separating the two.

Actually, come to think of it, "called Christ" does not necessarily need an antecedent.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy · 02-18-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So let me get this straight. Matthew is disinterested in Jesus' lineage?

No he is neutral about it. To him, it's a fact. Both neutrality and disinterest apply to his use of "legomenou".

Chaucer

So why do you think "Pilate" would be anything other than neutral saying "Jesus called Christ"? Is Pilate Jewish?

Chaucer · 02-18-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

No he is neutral about it. To him, it's a fact. Both neutrality and disinterest apply to his use of "legomenou".

Chaucer

So why do you think "Pilate" would be anything other than neutral saying "Jesus called Christ"? Is Pilate Jewish?

That is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Pilate's use of the word "legomenou" is indeed effectively neutral. And the fact that both the ultimately unsympathetic Pilate in Chapter 27 and the relatively sympathetic narrator in Chapter 1 both use "legomenou" shows the ultimate neutrality of the term in the first place.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy · 02-18-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So why do you think "Pilate" would be anything other than neutral saying "Jesus called Christ"? Is Pilate Jewish?

That is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Pilate's use of the word "legomenou" is indeed effectively neutral. And the fact that both the ultimately unsympathetic Pilate in Chapter 27 and the relatively sympathetic narrator in Chapter 1 both use "legomenou" shows the ultimate neutrality of the term in the first place.

Chaucer

You probably should have used another word besides "disinterested". I mean, I might as well say someone using the word "the" is being disinterested.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.