TedM

It goes against common sense on many levels, even if he's right.

Most objectionable is that there is zero evidence of this special group of "brothers of God" when we would expect to have some, most notably from Paul himself, who talks frequently of being adopted as "sons of God". Surely if he were excluded from this special "brothers of God" group he'd have something to say about it. But linguistically I just don't see much difference from going from "the Lord Jesus" to "the Lord". Also from 2nd person direct "Lord"! to "the Lord" in the 3rd person. Just substitute "Teacher" and "the Teacher" and the typical usage is clear. The only worthwhile objection then is that "the Lord" was "reserved" for God Himself, as it was too sacred to be used for anyone else. However since obviously the double usage is born out in the later record that must not be such a valid objection.

I agree with Spin that Paul doesn't use the phase to refer to Jesus except for a few times, but other than the OT references he doesn't use it many times to refer to God either! I also agree with spin that if Paul does use it for both God and Jesus he would only do so if his readers understood it. Obviously his readers knew what the phrase was all about, because otherwise Paul would have not used it since the clear purpose for using it was to identify WHICH James he was talking about.

Spin seems to think that the linguistic argument is the only one worth considering since it can be 'measured' in some mathematical sense. I think that is wrong because it is based on assumptions that cannot be proven, and it ignores plenty of common sense thinking.

stephan huller

But English speakers = dumdums

stephan huller

Really? Clement had it in his gospel. Blame the Catholics.

stephan huller

For now we see through a glass [1 Cor 13,12], knowing ourselves by a reflection (anaklasis) on [God as mirror] and from the divine in us contemplating as far as possible the Creative Cause. For, he says, 'you have seen your brother; you have seen your God'. [Strom 1.19.94.4]

TedM

Like I said there is zero evidence for a group that was called by such a name in the 1st century.

MrMacSon

"Brethren of the Lord" - http://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

hjalti

Is English your first language?

stephan huller

Like I said there is zero evidence for a group that was called by such a name in the 1st century.

I don't understand the objection. Judas the twin probably goes back to a similar concept. The gospel of Clement is another window on the significance of the 'brother of God' concept. I don't see this as a substantive objection because we haven't had the time to think through the implications of spin's discovery (at least I haven't).

But you recognize that the earliest known interpretation of Paul was that from the Marcionites and the reason they would have avoided using 'the Lord' would be self-explanatory.

stephan huller

No, my first language was German which explains why I am a bad lover.

hjalti

Ah...then it's OK for you to diss native English speakers. And yes they are silly! :P