Diogenes the Cynic

If it's the same person, then that person is "Paul," even if he's Eusebius' Aunt Fanny. It's just a name of convenience like how we say "Homer," even though we have no idea who wrote those epics.

spin

Just think of the modern terms "sister of mercy" or "brother of the cross" or ancient ones like "son of perdition" or "son of thunder". Thunder doesn't have children. Crosses don't have brothers. These ideas are qualifiers rather than simple genitives.

Once the term brother has currency within the community to indicate members, how do you indicate members with prestige? We know that later in the organized religion you had bishops and deacons.

Try "brother". If they have equal prestige they don't need qualifiers, do they?

You're not trying.

spin

It would be the plain normal reading of the Greek except for one fact: Paul basically doesn't use αδελφος that way. As he doesn't, you cannot pretend that it would be the plain normal reading for his readers.

This is still called an appeal to silence. You know that there are more than just James, as Paul talks of "brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor 9:5 and they have an elevated status, as James has.

And yes, the bolding of "the lord" seems to indicate that you are unaware of the fact that the non-titular κυριος is a label for god in the culture Paul was educated in.

It doesn't help in one's effort to understand from first principles the developments of the early church if you are too sold on the apologetics of the later church. We need to strip the literature of all the encrustations of later christianity otherwise we have no hope of getting to an understanding of it. Paul was at the very literary beginning of the tradition. His language does not reflect later christian terminological usage. It reflects his use and modifications of the existing language of his Jewish culture.

(There is no indication either way with John.)

You've failed to deal with the issues so your "cannot" has no foundation.

stephan huller

The problem with Diogenes is that he just isn't familiar with the original material. When you start to take the 'brother' argument literally you end up with Hegesippus's claim that the Jerusalem Church was literally run by the family of Jesus - brothers, sisters, cousins, retarded in laws. Clearly you can't go from Jesus in the gospel who no one knew had a mother or brothers to a Jesus that came from a Greek family whose wedding takes over two city blocks.

Again you start with this question in the gospel - did Jesus really have a mother and brothers? This question is there right from the beginning otherwise the narrative doesn't make sense. So there is clearly some kind of historical expansion or misunderstanding going on by the time Jesus's twelfth cousin allegedly sits on the episcopal throne of Jerusalem.

The question of how the 'family of Jesus' allegedly took over the Jerusalem Patriarchate is intriguing. The question of whether Jesus had a physical brother is not so interesting. Why? Because Christianity is about being adopted by the father and becoming Jesus's brother. It just is. That's what baptism was about from the beginning. No wonder people mistook the existence of a large family of Jesus being in Palestine from such questionable origins.

stephan huller

And as I have noted before (with no response from Diogenes) does he really believe on top of what I have just described you happen to have a family affair within the twelve apostles

Peter-Andrew
James-John
Judas the twin (of Jesus)

Really? It's all about physical brotherhood rather than spiritual brotherhood? And if it is about spiritual brotherhood then the idea that Jesus really only had spiritual brothers is distinctly possible (and that Peter and Andrew, James and John and the rest were also paired spiritual brothers).

And then the whole Jewish thing about Jesus being a bastard. This is a fact too? Or is it just that everyone can make up whatever shit they want because there was no evidence for the existence of Jesus's birth, family or death.

TedM

First, why do you say no one knew he had a mother or brothers when all four gospels say he did? Second, it makes sense that the family would be empowered to take positions of authority in his absence after he was killed. Third, the claim exists. Why? Fourth, there is a school of thought that the original Jewish believers believed in Jesus as a resurrected prophet and not divine..I don't know the basis for that, but wouldn't that provide a reason for those opposed to that idea--the gospel writers--to minimize the role of the brothers, and remove the introduction of James in Acts?

TedM

Good examples.

How about 'deacons' and 'bishops'? Geez.. You completely ignored the argument 'Brothers of the Lord' would be a very strange designation for Paul to not comment on because of the spiritual relationship he saw ALL believers having to God and to each other--they were brothers to each other not just because they were fellow believers, but because they were all adopted sons of their father God.



They don't have equal prestige with all 'brothers'! That's your point. Try again.


What does it mean spin? What is the prestige that excludes Cephas and the apostles? Your Origen explanation would seem to fail--would Cephas and the apostles not be 'virtuous' enough to receive the title?

Grog

How would a tinfoil hat help him?

DCHindley

Personally, in the 40-50's of the 1st century CE I distinguish a Pauline theology (gentiles can lay claim to the inheritance promised by God to Abraham's children, and which knows nothing of Jesus) and a Jesus theology (immanent coming of the kingdom of God, which know nothing of Paul).

As a result, I see Cephas, James and John as priests in Jerusalem who were willing to recognize Paul's followers as Israelites on certain strict conditions.

The Peter James & John of the Gospels are disciples of Jesus and key members of the provisional theocratic government established by him.

It was not until the late 1st century that the Paul and Jesus movements came into contact, with the latter adopting and adapting literature from the Paul movement to use as its own along with their Gospels. In time Peter of the Jesus Movement became conflated with the Cephas of the Pauline Movement, and in the process equated.

With the final publication of the NT books as we know them in mid 2nd century CE, the Gospels were Linked to the Pauline letters by adjusting John 1:42 to add "Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter)" and Galatians adjusted to add 2:7b-8 "just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles)."

DCH

Sheshbazzar

Interesting. What is your 40 and 50's 1st century CE source?