Originally Posted by Solo

I am sure that whatever separating 'instantiation of a lexeme from the construction in which it is used' means, it cannot mean that 'brother(s) of the Lord' excludes by a rule of semantics the possibility this is a terminus technicus of some messianic cult which denotes a rank or function. Get reasonable !.

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Spin,
This is a strong statement inviting readers to interpret any 'Lord' as meaning Jesus. A comma is implied between 'Lord' and 'Jesus Christ', because the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is not an issue. What Paul meant, for Christians, there is one God and there is one Lord, and that Lord is Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Now I have a tendency to read all 'Lord' on its own as meaning Jesus (as Paul wanted it to be understood, but with a fall back position to God, for the ones (Judaized) who thought otherwise).
At first look, there is no clear indication that any 'Lord' on its own in 1Corinthians has to be understood as 'God'. I ask you, where in the Pauline epistles, 'Lord' on its own, absolutely need to be interpreted as God in order to make sense, or there is a clear indication that 'God' is meant?

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

No, wrongly put: Paul says that god did the revealing of Jesus. Correct according to Gal 1:15-16. And Paul has his gospel revealed by Jesus (Gal1:12).

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

It is not the same thing. In Ps 110:1, it is clear 2 different lord are featured.

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

But not in 1Cor15:57 & 58. Do you expect the reader to interpret the Lord of v.58 differently than the one of v.57?

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

What follows is a lengthy explanation. I'm doing this because when I tried to be terse, it didn't work.

The last several posts I wrote were in response to a statement. I've come across various arguments about what "brother of the lord" means (Doherty discusses it, as does Carrier, and I've found it all over blogs and forum posts). One of the fundamental flaws with so many analyses is an assumption which ignores modern linguistic theory: "Paul uses brother metaphorically all the time. Therefore, he's using it metaphoricaly here."

The problem with this analysis is that for decades now modern linguistic theories of grammar have shown that any approach to a language (written or spoken) which seperates lexemes and syntax is flawed. Metaphor, prefabs, and constructions larger than words but less schematic than traditional grammatical rules are fundamental to language.

When I started to point this out, I received the following response:
In order to demonstrate that I am "amiss with the linguistics" one would have to have some knowledge of linguistic theory as it is at play here, yet the next line clearly demonstrates a lack of such knowledge. This continued, with post after post about "structure" which completely misunderstands construction grammar as it has been incorporated into modern models of grammar and even such nonsense as:

The "simple transformation" part refers to an elementary and outdated knowledge of transformational linguistics, which Chomsky himself and his heirs "abandonded" in various was. Even within a simplistic transformational approach, the "lexicon" limits what transformations are "grammatical." And the reason even hardcore generative linguists like Jackendoff accept constructions against the early generative account is due to the work of construction grammarians.

So, how is all this relevant? Language is composed of constructions, from words to traditional rules of grammar. It's also filled with prefabs ("get real" "once again" "all of a sudden" "take a break" "lend a hand" "far be it from me" and on and on). A great many constructions (e.g., "what's X doing Y," "the X-er, the Y-er") are larger than words, but are schematic, while others are fixed. For example, "it takes one to know one" is idiomatic, but it is completely fixed (*it took one to know one"). Others are only marginally flexible ("you're pulling my leg" "he was pulling my leg" etc.). However, A construction like "the X-er, the Y-er" has a "grammar" of it's own. Thus, even though "The higher you climb, the harder you fall" and "the more I thought about it, taking into account all that I had read, the less inclined I was to accept a componential model of grammar" have (it appears) quite different structures, they are both instances of the schematic construction "the X-er, the Y-er."

Likewise, two sentences can have the same exact structure, but because they belong to different argument structures and inherit from different constructions, be completely different.

"You're driving me home."
"You're driving me crazy."

The same structure, completely different meanings.

Then there are constructions which are the same, but change slightly depending on things like the subject:
"Kids are kids"
"Boys will be boys"
"War is war."
"The law is the law"
"A party is a party."

compare
*the party is the party
*kid is kid

etc.

The point of all of the above is that while in traditional grammar we have words and we have grammar, and therefore saying "Paul uses brother metaphorically all the time, and thus there's no reason to think he isn't here," wouldn't be an issue, modern linguistic theory has shown it is flawed. It's not just a matter of context but of the grammatical constructions used.

In the greco-roman and judaic world, where so many people shared the same name, certain constructions were used to identify people. Kinship was a common one:
"Iatrocles, brother of Ergochares, and Eueratus, son of Strombich/Iatrokles ho Ergocharous adelphos kai Eueratos ho Strombichou huios Aeschines on the Embassy 2.15


"and seeing Euphemus, the brother of Callias, son of Telocles/idon de Euphemon ton Kalliou tou Telokleous adelphon" Andocides On the Mysteries 1.40

"Everybody knows that Euaeon, the brother of Leodamas, killed Boeotus../isasin Euaiona polloi ton Leodamantos adelphon, apokteinanta Boioton...
Demosthenes Against Midias 71

"Certainly Attalus, the brother of Eumenes,.../Attalon goun ton Eumenous...adelphon Plutarch An seni respublica gerenda sit chap.1

"Timotheus, the son of Conon/Τιμόθεος ὁ Κόνωνος" Aeschines on the Embassy 2.70



And on and on. In the last example, the word "son" is added. The actual text reads more literally "Timotheos of Conon."

The prototypical kin identification construction used the father, and thus although "son of" was often included, it was often implied by the identification construction itself.

However, from Herodotus to Plutarch and beyond we see this same kin indentification construction all over the place. It is schematic, in that word order is flexible, parts can be removed (such as the word "son"), things can be inserted in between the indentified and the indentifier (from asides to other adjectives and so on), but the basic schema remains: X the Y of Z.

Each time we see Paul use the word brother or brothers, we must not only understand this usage within the context of Paul but the construction he uses in every instantiation. For example, we frequently see "brothers" as a general address to those he is writing to. We see "brothers in christ." And so on. In other words, we frequently find the word in metaphorical constructions in which Paul conceptualizes the "body of christ" or the ekklesia as composed of brothers and sisters in christ. And thus when "brother(s)" is used in this way, we have reason to reject the notion that Paul is referring to a literal brother.

This is quite different from the construction we find in Galations. Here we find an identification construction: James, the brother of the lord/Iakobon ton adelphon tou Kurio. It is a typical kinship identification construction: X the Y of Z.

This construction differs from the metaphorical constructions we find elsewhere. We don't have any reason to think it is not an identification construction, nor is it comparable to other uses of brother (paul distinguishes between brothers in christ and of the lord).

Applying the generalization of metaphorical usage is fallacious because it seperates instantiation of a lexeme from the construction in which it is used. Linguistic models of grammar demonstrate how wrong this is.

So the first "evidence" is simply an argument against the fallacious conclusion that as Paul uses a word metaphorically many times, we can conclude metaphorical usage when we see it.

By "positive" evidence, I mean not just arguments which show the flaws in how we should read this line (such as applying the metaphorical usage ignoring the construction, or reading the line as a title), but evidence that the usage does mean actual brother.

The first is the identification construction it self. It's the same construction we see all over greek texts to identify individuals by kin.

The second is the sources that also identify a James, the brother of Jesus, including Mark/Matthew and Josephus.

Matt 13:55, most likely dependent on Mark 6:3, identify a brother of Jesus named James. This James is distinct from the James of the 12. In Galatians, Paul distinguishes/identifies James, the brother of Jesus, and has to because he could be talking about James, the pillar (of the 12). Every gospel, however, describes actual brothers of Jesus.


This:
Simplistic transformation analysis like is appropriate for a intro course on linguistics, as it was the beginning of modern linguistics and chomsky's early model (he's been through several). It is completely inadequate here. The work on frames/roles/cases/etc. and idioms came together in the late 1980s early 1990s, and has since dominated linguistic models of grammar. The idea that one can simply "replace" του Ραυλου with μου simply isn't accurate, and the reason transformational linguistics was abandoned (and even generative linguists use roles & constructions) was because outside of textbook examples, such analyses failed when it came to actual language. I cannot replace "bucket" in "He's about to kick the bucket" with "soccer ball" without fundamentally changing the meaning. I can replace crazy in "He's driving me crazy" with "mad/insane/up the wall/out of my mind/etc.," but not with "home" or "there" or "up the hill".

Originally Posted by spin

This is just recycling your own rubbish. The only thing it's got going for it is that it is ecological (in a perverse manner).

Originally Posted by judge

As he has tried at length, now, to explain, we would need a reason to believe it is "a terminus technicus of some messianic cult which denotes a rank or function."
There is no evidence anywhere of such a group. You are grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Solo

IOW, you are saying - in response to the above - there is no possibility of any other meaning to the 'brother of the Lord' than 'brother of Jesus of Nazareth'.

Originally Posted by DCHindley

This essay by Michaelis (who is a professor of linguistics at the University of Colorado) might shed some light.

Originally Posted by spin

Paul has set a personal idiom through most of his writing such that a reader would expect when he uses the term "brother(s)" he generally means "believer(s)". Paul can call Titus "my brother"

Τιτον τον αδελφον μου [= του Ραυλου] (1 Cor 2:13),

which is structurally no different from

Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου.

Originally Posted by Solo

I am sure that whatever separating 'instantiation of a lexeme from the construction in which it is used' means, it cannot mean that 'brother(s) of the Lord' excludes by a rule of semantics the possibility this is a terminus technicus of some messianic cult which denotes a rank or function.

Originally Posted by Solo

The notion is not supported by the Epistle to James, Gospel of Thomas(12), or Acts of the Apostles, or TMK, by Clement of Alexandria. The term desposyni, "those belonging to the Lord" was coined by Julius Sextus Africanus early in the 3rd century.