jjramsey

You mean the bit about "called Christ," I gather. So, then, why do you think the use of legomenou ("called") is particularly Matthean?

post tenebras lux

I didn't say it was 'particularly Matthean', I asked 'why would Josephus do a cut'n'paste' from him?

By the way, isn't it legomenoV rather than legomenou? Would you care to explain the difference in meaning of the two words?
Thanks in advance.

Alf

But neither is there evidence that all references are to the same individual.

Alf

Amaleq13

What references do you believe are to another?

post tenebras lux

So you're suggesting that Josephus could have known that Jesus was claimed to be the messiah but that he didn't bother writing anything else about him, even though he did for the other wannabe-messiah claimants of the time? Does that sound like him? Or that Jesus was only called the Christ and never the Messiah so Josephus knowing him only as 'Jesus called the Annointed One' didn't connect his title as meaning messiah?

By the way, when I say 'interpolation', I am not excluding the possibility that it was a marginal gloss that got incorporated into the main text via an honest mistake by a pious scribe.

Amaleq13

He really didn't write that much about messianic claimants, did he? I would also question whether Jesus would be lumped in with the others given that they were much more in line with the traditional expectations of a military leader. Perhaps, in Josephus' mind, there was a significant difference between being "called Christ" and acting as though one was going to lead the Jews to a military victory over Rome.

Or didn't connect the beliefs of Christians with the militaristic messiahs he blamed for the fall of Jerusalem. Just an odd cult whose leader served as an example of Pilate's cruelty while his brother served as an example of the corrupt acts of certain leaders in the Jewish community.

Understood.

jjramsey

But if the words in question aren't peculiarly Matthean in the first place, how do you know that they are even from Matthew, especially when the snippet in question is so short as to not be an obvious verbatim quote?

I think it's legomenou, but I'm remembering by rote, mostly so that those that do have the serious Greek knowledge have a better idea of what bit of Josephus to which I'm referring. (My own Greek is mostly limited to what I can eke from lexicons and similar references. It's just enough for a sermon or a bible study, but nowhere near the league of, say, the contributors on the Crosstalk mailing list.)

Ben C Smith

Josephus has του λεγομενου Χριστου (tou legomenou Xristou) at Antiquities 20.9.1 §200. The difference between λεγομενου and λεγομενος is only one of case; the former is in the genitive case, the latter in the nominative. It is the grammar of the sentence that determines which case to use; there is no difference in dictionary definition.

The word (which is a participle, BTW) in Matthew 1.16 is the nominative λεγομενος.

The overlap between Josephus and Matthew 1.16 consists of three words in a common construction, ο λεγομενος plus the name or title or whatever of the person so called. The same construction is used in Matthew 4.18; 10.2 of Simon (called Peter), in Matthew 26.3 of the high priest (called Caiaphas), in Matthew 26.14; Luke 22.47 of one of the twelve (called Judas), in Matthew 27.17, 22 again of Jesus (called Christ), in Mark 15.7 of a man (called Barabbas), in Luke 22.1 of the feast of unleavened bread (called Passover), in John 11.16 of Thomas (called Didymus), and in many other places. It is a very common way of indicating that an individual or even a place or event has two names or ways of being referred to.

Ben.

Alf

I sense a shifting of the burden of proof here. We see several references and someone claim that they all refer to the same individual even though there is no clear proof that they do.

Show me first any evidence that they do indeed all refer to the same individual and then we're in business.

Until such evidence is put forth it is not reasonable to jump to the conclusion that they do.

Alf

Alf

There are also people who claim that holocaust never took place.

The book burnings took place and lots of them. Constantine for example and the christian emperors after him. That was exact around "as soon as the christians got in power" as was my claim. I am sorry about the quote which I got wrong but the fact that the book burnings and burnings of libraries and destruction of pagan temples took place is not open for dispute.

Alf