spin

I guess LOM is working with some narrow(-minded) definition.

Simple rubbish. LOM is imagining things. I have indicated that context, which is the constructions in which lexical items occur, is what determines significance of words. And if I point a gun at him and say, "Run!" what do you think he will do?

Hmmm, pedantry. Novel. Ripe coming from one who so frequently can't spell "Galatians".

icardfacepalm:

And LOM still hasn't succeeded in peddling his mathematical formula. X is the Y of Z. You know, Frank Zappa is the Mother of Invention. I guess it only applies to ancient times. Take LOM's word for it.

judge

Finally you have a point. He made a spelling mistake.

aa5874

Your statement is most amazing. SPIN is AGNOSTIC so why are you arguing with him??

If you really believe no-one knows if Jesus existed then please acknowledge Spin's position of Agnosticism.


You very well know that HJers MUST PRESUME that GALATIANS is credible and that Paul was NOT lying when he claimed he SAW the Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem.

Well, NOT one character, including Paul, can be confirmed to have existed as stated in GALATIANS.

HJers cannot demonstrate that any statement in Galatians about Paul, Jesus, the Apostle Peter, James, John, Barnabas and Titus is historically accurate .

Now, it is WELL KNOWN that Jesus of the NT did NOT exist as described.

Why are people looking for an UNKNOWN Jesus???

Why is there a QUEST for an UNKNOWN character???

AN UNIDENTIFIED character cannot ever be FOUND when it is NOT known who is being sought.

I CAN search writings of antiquity for PONTIUS PILATE the Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius found in the Gospels

I CAN search the writings of Antiquity for the ANGEL Gabriel found in gLuke.

BUT, I CAN'T SEARCH FOR an Human Jesus with a human father when NO credible source of antiquity identified an HUMAN Jesus and his father.

Please tell HJers to CALL off their QUEST. It does NOT MAKE SENSE to LOOK for an UNKNOWN character.

TELL EHRMAN, too

Apologetic sources have ALREADY NOTIFIED us all that it is FUTILE to look for a Jesus with a human brother called the Apostle James.

The Apostle James had NO human brother called Jesus Christ in Apologetic sources.

YOU CAN'T LOOK for the UNKNOWN.

It is WELL-KNOWN that BIBLE Jesus did NOT exist.No other Jesus of Nazareth is known.

Tell HJers to call off the QUEST for the UNKNOWN right now.

Tell HJers that NO-ONE can know if an historical Jesus existed when he is UNKNOWN.

LegionOnomaMoi

No, actually. See Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1993). Idioms. Language 70(3): pp. 491-538.

And once you have a basic understanding of idioms, compare it to metaphor, image schemas, metonymy (as they are used in cognitive science and linguistics) and to usage based accounts of language. See e.g., From Perception to Meaning (volume 29 in the edited series Cognitive Linguistics Research), Language, Usage, and Cognition by Bybee, Metonymy in Language and Thought (volume 4 from the edited series [I]Human Cognitive Processing[/I), Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-Based Approach by Wulff, & Metaphor and Iconicity: A Cognitive Approach to Analysing Texts by Hiraga).


Except this is simply wrong. I have given plenty of references to linguistic research, models, and theories I'm applying. Context is not "constructions." What you call "rubbish" and "imagining things" just happens to be a cental approach to syntax. I can give you more references if you like. But as you have yet to do anything except apply a "transformation" similar to those in a textbook I have written about 30 years ago, you would have to start with something more elementary. Croft & Cruse' (2004) Cognitive Linguistics is an introductory text with an excellent two chapter review of constructions. You can the download the entire volume Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (volume 32 from the edited series Cognitive Linguistics Research) which includes a paper by Langacker comparing different construction grammar approaches. It also has a papers on metonymy and metaphor.



I actually gave plenty of examples (of a construction, not a mathematical formula). But even were I write a monograph on this, the fact that you don't have any idea what construction grammar is would make it useless. However, as you've switched from the 2nd to 3rd person in your posts, resorted purely to ad hominem and rhetoric, I think its fairly obvious that you know this.

Solo

Before starting to google out erudition and harvest at length random "hits" you should reflect on the contexts in which my remarks occured.


And now you are wasting time talking in terms noone even remotely familiar with the methods of history would recognize or accept.

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between the title "Christ" and a common name or nickname like "Peter" ? But it is precisely on such a lack of distinction that the fraudster grafted onto Josephus ant 20.9, "him called Christ": if Matthew puts it on the lips of Pilate, it must have originated with Pilate. And if Pilate used it then presumably all literate ousiders knew right away who "Jesus called Messiah" was. Is that what you would call positive evidence in mating zebra finch song system? Because you see it sounds to me more like 'positive evidence for desperate cuckoo song system'.


...a moment of solemn reflection

Ach so, nun man spricht Deutsch hier. Und was Herr Pratscher gesagt hat daβ mir widerspricht ? Seiner Meinung nach, schlueβeln die Psudoklementinen Jakobos als einen wirklicher Blutbruder Jesu auf ?

I have twice put it to you that while I acknowledge that Mark and Matthew testify that Jesus had a brother by the name of James it does not help your case. (BTW, John does not and Luke's witness is based on the opinion of the later church (Jerome) that James the son of Alphaeus was related by blood to Jesus.) No way this information guarantees by any acceptable rule of logic that this James was the leader of the Jerusalem assembly known as James the Just.

There is, TMK, no early evidence for the bolded part in the documents I cited and your insistence that there does not make it so. No use of me responding to nonsense just because it is repeated. :wave:

Best,
Jiri

LegionOnomaMoi

Actually JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, and ScienceDirect, but no matter. I was going to just refer to works that I had, but that wouldn't allow you to see them. So I had to find ones you could.




No one? From Avizier Tucker's Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography (Cambridge University Press, 2004): "But it is also necessary to clarify and develop Rescher's acknolwedgement that consensus can be a positive evidential factor and therefore has an instrumental value in discovering groups that share knowledge."

So if I had said "positive evidential factor" rather than "positive evidence" that would have been ok?

Common? How was Peter a "common name or nickname"? And the point is not that Christ is not a title. It's whether "called christ" is. Christ/messiah is clearly a title (or specified role), but that's meaningless here. If no christian ever said "called christ" but Josephus did, christ would still be a title. The questions is whether or not "called christ" is a method/term christians used to describe Jesus. Not whether christ itself is a title. And the fact that matthew introduces multiple people using this method, and in particular when noting what people like Jesus, Simon, and Judas were known by or called, indicates that this usage in matthew is anything but a christian term. It's just a method matthew uses for people in general.

Talk about missing the point. I never claimed (nor do I think) that this construction originated with pilate. The reason it is important to note that Matthew has Pilate use the term this way is because it is the way an outsider (who doesn't believe Jesus actually IS christ) may refer to him. Matthew, having introduced Jesus and (as he does with Simon and Judas) informing the reader/audience what Jesus is known as/called, doesn't do this again, except indirectly through Pilate.



Wow.

The question is whether or not Josephus is an interpolation. You argued that as we see "called christ" in christian texts a few times, it suddenly becomes a christian term, and thus we can view Josephus as an interpolation. This is nonsense. Christians referred to Jesus as Lord, the Christ, and many things, all of which we could call christian terms, but this is not one of them. If you cannot see the difference between a term a christian uses and a christian term, then you should view pretty much every text written in ancient greek as christian, as christian texts use (the greek equivalent of) terms like "called, son, father, sister, home, etc."

Is that what you would call positive evidence in mating zebra finch song system? Because you see it sounds to me more like 'positive evidence for desperate cuckoo song system'.


His work is on the christian understanding of James from acts onwards. In other words. The evidence that James was einen wirklicher Blutbruder Jesu is from Paul, Mark/Matthew, Josephus, and Acts (through inference). Die Psudoklementinen Jakobos, in Schlachter's analysis (along with others), is simply a witness to how later christians understood him. It's also a "witness" to the understanding among christians before the 3rd century that James was the brother of Jesus. It's not a reliable witness, but you did ask for that. What you stated is: Only however one interprets the first sentence quoted above and your replies to my responses, you are wrong. Josephus doesn't say anything about "James the Just." Just that there was a james who was Jesus' brother. Paul, Matthew, and Mark all likewise identify this brother. So, if you require witnesses that James the Just (known as such) is the brother of Jesus, then Josephus isn't one of them, as he doesn't tell us

So first you state that Josephus is (or would be, if it were not an interpolation) the only witness that James the Just was the brother of Jesus. Only he isn't. He identifies a brother of Jesus named James. So does Paul, Mark, and Matthew. Yet Mark/Matthew don't count because they don't identify this James as a leader of the Jerusalem church. Neither does Josephus. Then we have references to James the Just, brother of Jesus which are prior to the third century, yet apparently these aren't witnesses either. So we can't view Josephus as genuine, because he later sources of James the Just as the brother of Jesus are unreliable, and we can't count earlier witnesses because they, like Josphus do not refer to a James the Just, only a James, brother of Jesus, and thus we can neatly discount Josephus by requiring another early witness to back up something Josephus never states.

aa5874

Galatians is NOT complex at all. The author simply made statements which were NOT corroborated by any apologetic sources and NO HJers can confirm are historically accurate.

In Galatians 1.19 it is claimed a Pauline character SAW Apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother. The statement itself has NOT ever been establish to be true or can be proven to be true.

The Pauline writer claimed he SAW the resurrected Jesus which cannot be true whether or not Jesus lived.

Galatians 1.19 MUST first be corroborated for its veracity.

Galatians 1.19 will FAIL a veracity test based on Apologetics.

Apologetic sources claimed that the Apostle James had NO human brother called Jesus Christ. See De Viris Illustribus--See the Fragment of Papias.

spin

This was the blunder waiting to be enunciated. I was not talking about idioms, but one's personal idiom. LOM's expectations are the fault here. He is too busy caught up in his own narrow world to notice what people say.

LOM is such a wonderful contortionist. Too bad he is not reading to understand, but reading for pedantry.

Hypocrisy becomes LOM. He has failed to show the relevance of his formula to Paul's language, assuming that he can ignore the way Paul uses his words. He has his formula that Paul has to conform to. A linguistics student who still hasn't learnt that language is not prescriptive.

If Jesus Christ (X) is the son (Y) of god (Z), Mk 1:1, does this indicate biological kinship? How does the formula apply? Did god physically procreate with a woman? What does "son" mean here? If the devil is the father of lies, did the word become flesh?

LOM is a purveyor of organic fertilizer.

:horsecrap:

judge

All you have pointed to is that paul uses "brother" to refer to believers at times.
How on earth do you imagine this equates to a "personal idiom"?

spin

LOM, as is so common, misses the point yet again. Being called something is not too uncommon, when that something is a name or nickname, but being called the christ entails a Judeo-christian background to understand. What would a Roman Greek-speaking audience understand by χριστος without that background knowledge? The term meant "unguent" or "ointment", "that which is spread on", outside that context.

Given that the writer is happy enough to use it in 1:16 LOM's contorted logic makes the writer himself an outsider.

But that is no help to the screwy idea that "Jesus called christ" is attached only to non-christian speakers. Matthew's writer is happy to use it. Yet LOM has declared that because there are three uses of λεγομενος χριστος in Mt and Jn and that three of them the christian writers put in the mouths of a Roman and a Samaritan while one is the narrative voice of the writer of the first gospel, there is enough of a sample to make an indelible rule that λεγομενος χριστος doesn't reflect christian language. The prescriptive linguist strikes again.

Oh wait, what about non-christian Josephus, who, out of the 40 odd references to χριστος in the LXX, never uses one, but uses χριστος only for Jesus? That's not christian influence is it? Josephus deliberately leaves out the Jewish technical term, not even using it for the one he claims fulfills messianic prophecy (Vespasian), but then uses it for Jesus, twice. Oh, yeah, all the scholars in the field believe one is an interpolation.