Clivedurdle

General weight of evidence.

For example, the twelve definitely means minor prophets - we cannot even be sure there were eleven or twelve key followers of Jesus! That also might be made up for religious reasons to tie in this god man with the hebrew prophets.

I think Paul was very gnostic, and as such I do not think it is an a priori assumption to assume liturgical and symbolic meanings.

I think I can explain literal and historical as a result of this wonderful idea of god with us being expanded over time as thickies asked basic questions like, OK, who were this god mans parents, where did he live and die, what did he teach?

We have a classic example of turning a mystical figure into a real person. Imagine if we did this to Darth Vader. What if in a few hundred years it was not clear that DV is fictional, and a huge organisation with the patronage of the emperor said DV was real.

TedM

I don't think the current wording suggests Cephas was not in the group. I never said that. I said that it could be read either way. I really don't think the current wording would be misleading at all if Paul's audience already knew that Cephas was part of the twelve. The wording doesn't 'give away' the answer. "he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, which included Cephas" WOULD be a clearer way to phrase it FOR US, but we certainly wouldn't expect such redundancy, nor in a creed, for Paul's readers.


Or the more prominent of his siblings. I am Frank's brother even though I have another brother. I don't think an explanation is needed. It's consistent with how people talk.

I agree. I basically using all of the same arguments as with the James reference and pointing out that your objection for the James passage--Paul has no motivation to mention a sibling--doesnt' apply in this passage. I do think the most common, natural interpretation people have of "brother of X" and "brothers of X" is biological, but agree that "the Lord" opens up another possible interpretation. To me, Paul clearly believed Jesus was a man, but normally doesn't refer to him as "Jesus", preferring a number of alternative phrases that emphasize his own knowledge of and relationship with him as his risen Savior , not having known him personally while he was a man.

andrewcriddle

The Greek is IAKWBON TON ADELPhON TOU KURIOU literally 'James the brother of the Lord' .

However IIUC the use of the definite article in giving a title or identifier to a name is normal in Greek, or at least NT Greek, (Isaiah the Prophet, Mary Magdalene Zenas the Lawyer Elymas the Magician etc), and does not imply 'the one and only'.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I got that impression from the following exchange:

You then went on to discuss how it might be reworded under various assumptions.

The wording doesn't make it impossible to read things into it but that doesn't make such speculations legitimate interpretations.

But we have no reason to make that assumption.

But I'm saying there is no problem requiring an "answer" unless you want to try to harmonize Paul's statement with the Gospels and that is not a valid way of understanding Paul. Given that the number is incompatible with the Gospel stories, why bother trying to shove Cephas into the group?

Taken as it is written and in the context of everything else we have from Paul, there is no inherent problem with understanding it to mean what it appears to suggest (ie Cephas was not part of "the twelve").

Do people ever refer to you as "the" brother of Frank? I recognize that it doesn't exactly exclude the possibility of other brothers but, given several brothers, it seems more natural to me to describe you as one of many (ie "Ted is a brother of Frank's" or "one of Frank's brothers" or "Frank's oldest/youngest brother" or even just an ambiguous "Frank's brother"). Adding "the" seems to suggest singularity but, as I've said, I'm not sure how much weight should be placed on the article.

It would great if there was a clear "smoking gun" that eliminated one position or the other but it certainly seems to me that one can read Paul as supporting either if you start out assuming one and neither is conclusively or obviously superior if you somehow refrain from making any initial assumption.

In general, Paul tends to piss me off by (from my 21st century perspective) making things difficult with his odd choice of words.

Amaleq13

Thank Andrew. I didn't see your post before I posted.

So one brother of many might very well be referred to as "the" brother?

ETA:

I found several examples in the Bible but I also found examples of "a brother" (Genesis 14:13; 1 Chronicles 27:18; 2 Chronicles 36:4; Jude 1:1).

Is the choice of article at all meaningful?

TedM

You are right Amaleq13. I contradicted myself. I think I would not think of Cephas as being part of the twelve without knowing anything more. At the same time, I don't find that a valid argument to CONCLUDE that Cephas wasn't part of the twelve. Here is what I originally said that I still stand by:

Conversly, If Peter wasn't among the twelve the wording as it is makes sense. It makes the most sense to me either way. You stated that if Peter was among the twelve and he had a first appearance by himself and then with the group it would make more sense to you to state that as "he appeared to Cephas, then to the other eleven". I disagree because that implies that Cephas wasn't among the twelve at the time of the second appearance.

In any case, whether brothers of the Lord is a subset of apostles or not is irrelevant as I see it. They would be important either way, serving to help make Paul's point.


I'm not sure I disagree with you, but really don't see a strong connection to the passage in Cor in question. My contention wasn't originally that "the brothers of the Lord" were apostles. Only that they were important, and treated better than Paul for some reason.

I really don't see a difference between "Frank's brother" and "the brother of Frank".

It definitely can be frustrating. I just think it is more likely that when we don't have an explanation for a figurative meaning and a literal one is easily understood, then it is more likely that the literal one is the proper explanation. It pretty much comes down to that for me.

ted

Clivedurdle

What is the actual phrase? Why can't brothers of the lord be followers, ie Jesus a son of God, we are also sons by adoption, therefore brother of the lord is any follower. Why assume blood relationship? Was this another way of labelling followers of the way?

Amaleq13

Agreed.

The brothers are a subset either way, I would think. It is only the nature of their difference that might be important to Don's dating question and only if it can be established that it is because they were literal siblings of Jesus.

As I said before, in English, the article "the" can imply singularity (ie Frank's only brother). IIUC, Andrew has indicated that the implication does not exist in Greek though I'm not clear on what guides the decision between "a" and "the" since there are examples of both in the Bible.

I don't think that is sound reasoning, though. As was already discussed, "our" understanding of the text cannot be generalized to Paul or his audience. That a figurative meaning is not explained for us does not, in any way, suggest that no figurative meaning was originally intended and common knowledge to Paul's readers. In addition, I'm not sure what you mean by "easily understood" since a subgroup and leader doesn't appear to me to be any more difficult a concept to grasp than literal brothers.

Again, if we didn't have the Gospel stories influencing our thinking, this issue would be more clearly ambiguous and there appears to be no good reason to allow those stories to have such influence because, for one thing, they are inconsistent with what Paul tells us. In fact, they are inconsistent precisely on the points we have been discussing! They've got Jesus' family thinking he is crazy and a completely different guy named "James" as one of the Big Three!

IOW, if you are correct that Paul should be interpreted literally, the authors of the Gospels have clearly significantly altered the facts in creating their stories. If the Gospels have significantly altered the facts, it makes even less sense to use them to understand Paul than just from chronological considerations.

TedM

I agree.

I explained poorly. I meant the more common use of "brother of X". Your argument that X is all important in this case and therefore can't really be compared with a person is valid and I think our weighting of X in this case different because I think Paul uses "Lord" in place of his conception of the Savior--ie a flesh and blood man come from heaven, returned to heaven, whereas you apply it to the heavenly Savior only.

Very valid points.

I agree, if they altered the facts. Just thinking out loud--if Mark really knew of Paul's writings why would he alter the facts to portray James so differently and possibly so soon after James had died--and people could have refuted it? Really all we know from Paul is that James was a believer AFTER the resurrection, so there is a 'way around' that one. As for the 'twelve', I agree that looks problematic. Maybe Paul made a mistake since the group was possibly known as 'the twelve', having replace Judas just after the ascension. Still, it does cast doubt on the Judas story.

ted

Amaleq13

I don't want to turn this into a full-fledged tangent (I think we were doing fine with the "brother" thing because it relates to dating) but I think that is an interesting question. I offer the following only as "food for thought" or as inspiration for a new thread. I'm less concerned with "so soon" or refutation because I'm not convinced Mark was written physically or temporally near enough to Jerusalem to make those a problem. The difference in depiction, though, warrants consideration. It seems to me that the difference is greater given your assumptions of literal relationship. Mark's Brother James is hardly even a factor in the story yet hard to ignore (and explain) given your assumption. From my position, the name is probably a coincidence and Paul's "James" is played by Disciple James in Mark's story just as Paul's "Cephas" is played by Simon Peter. Early apostles (and I hold James to have been nothing more) become Disciples.

I'm not sure how to explain it all given your assumptions but I'll think about it.

I'm not sure how much that helps. I don't see the Gospels or Acts referring to any James that follows Jesus as his brother. Even the letter attributed to James doesn't make that claim and the letter attributed to Jude has the author describe himself as "brother of James".