Toto

It's ambiguous. Brother of Jesus, son of Joseph would be clear.

None, but the context is usually not ambiguous.

The importance of family leads me to expect that the real brothers of Jesus would have been part of his organization, contra the gospels. I think this is the basis of James Tabor's fantasy reconstruction of the early church. But I don't know how it would have been indicated in writing of the period.

We don't know them from any source, except the aprocryphal gospel that preserves Mary's virginity by having James born of Joseph's first wife.

Birth order is an important aspect of human relations. This is just another small indication that this is story telling, not history.

I would expect Paul to somehow find some reason to distinguish himself from someone who knew the the historical Jesus, if his religion had actually derived from a historical Jesus. A spiritual revelation does not measure up to someone who actually knew Jesus - and also may have received a revelation from Jesus.

There is the Jewish name that spin found, meaning "brother of YHWH." But I have no evidence that Brother of the Lord was a title.

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

This is a curious passage. Why are apostles and brothers listed separately? Why is Cephas singled out? I don't know. I have seen the opinion that "the Brothers of the Lord" was an organization, with James the top "Brother of the Lord" as its head.

I'm not sure how Detering handles that. I would guess that it was meant as a title, but if it is a later creation, it is not evidence for a historical Jesus.

Jeffrey Gibson

But her doesn't, does he.

The midrashic allusion in 1 Cor 10:4 to Christ as the rock which accompanied the Israelites in the desert is an application on the part of Paul in a typological way of the past experience of Israel to the present situation of the Church: Christ functions for believers as the rock functioned for Israel

On this, see K.-J. Kuschel, Born before All Time? The Dispute over Christ's Origin (or via: amazon.co.uk), trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1992

Jeffrey

Solitary Man

It's only ambiguous because you refuse, without the hard evidence that you worship, to read it literally.

Toto

This Review of Kuschel seems to indicate that his conclusions are theologically driven. There is another comment here.

Do you claim that Kuschel represents a consensus of Pauline scholars on the meaning of 1 Cor 10 or the issue of Paul's Christology?

The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, p. 9 indicates that he is not in the mainstream with regard to Paul.

Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry Hurtado also seems to think that Paul thought of Jesus as preexisting.

Minimalist

I'm not terribly impressed by the James reference, either.

Sorry but I regard christian writings as self-serving tissues of lies.

Jeffrey Gibson

He represents quite a few scholars' views on this passage. See the summaries of who stands where in Thrall, Garland, Dunn, and Fee.

Speaking of theologically driven conclusions, see Dunn's review of Gatherigcole's book at the RBL site. (Simon was Jimmy's student).

And what exactly is Larry asserting when he says that? That is to say, what does he think is the nature and significance of "pre existence" language when used by 1st century Christians/Jews? Is it an ontological affirmation or something else?

We've dealt with this issue before regarding what 1st century Christians were asserting when they purportedly spoke of Jesus or Christ or the Logos as "pre existing", especially in the light of, and in reaction to, assertions by Jews of the "pre-existence" of Moses and the Torah.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

And brother of Jesus, son of Joseph from Galilee, who had three brothers and a few sisters would be clearer still.

But Paul is not writing for us.

How much context does using the term brother in its usual, primary lexical sense require?

The term son can be used metaphorically, too. What exactly in the usual contexts (in Josephus, for example, or wherever you wish) is it that makes son of refer to kinship rather than meaning something like disciple of?

What makes you certain that they were not, at least at some point in time?

So saying brother of instead of older brother of casts doubt, however small, on historicity? What about son of and youngest son of or second son of? Do you expect these expanded identifiers in other texts, too? Does Josephus disappoint you?

How about claiming that his religion did not derive from an historical Jesus? How about claiming that he got the goods from the risen Lord? How does this fail to make the distinction between himself and others that you are seeking?

I flat disagree with this. Spirit trumps flesh; this is all over the texts of Paul.

Jewish names almost always mean something. How does a name that means brother of Yahweh shed light on a title? The name Ariel means lion of God. Does the existence of that name imply a title lion of God? Does every theophoric name imply a theophoric title? Or what exactly is the argument from Ahijah?

This is why I used the phrase makes sense in my post. Which of these questions (or which others) arise and are difficult to handle if the phrase brothers of in 1 Corinthians 9.5 indicates physical siblings?

Who said anything about evidence for an historical Jesus? I thought we were talking about the historical James.

Ben.

Solitary Man

Considering that Josephus wasn't a Christian, I guess that sums up your knowledge of history.

Steven Carr

I see.

The Israelites worshipped the rock, which was their Messiah?

How dis the rock fulfill its role as Messiah?

aa5874

Galations 1.19-20 How can we find out if this Paul of Galations was lying and what was he accused of lying about? Did someone claim that Jesus never existed and could not have a brother?

What do we know about this James, this so-called Lord's brother, as described in that verse in Galations from other sources in the NT? Well, that's all there is, the complete history of this James is three words, the Lord's brother. That's it, but there are other major problems. Was James the brother of the father of Jesus?

Matthew 13.55 Mark 6.3 So, from the NT, there is a statement and two questions about some James, the brother of a carpenter or the brother of a carpenter's son, whose mother Mary claimed that the carpenter or the carpenter's son is the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

And in Acts of the Apostles, the author of that book never mentioned that Saul/Paul ever met any James the Lord's brother, in fact the author never mentioned the Lord's brother, he claimed Saul/Paul met the apostles contrary to Paul in Galations.

Acts 9.26-27 It is either that the author of Acts, the Paul of Galations or both were lying, since they contradict each other.

How do we find out if Paul was lying?