Solo

In Paul, there are dative constructs for holy brothers at large. However, I am speaking of a group of Jerusalem saints surmising that they were referred to as "brothers of the lord" by the church, not by Paul. Why would you be expecting a dative construct for them when Paul reports on them ? Any ideas, Jeffrey ?

Now, admit for a second that there is a possibility of reading the term that way. How would examining other instances of "holiness" and "lord" in Paul be helpful in determining how Paul would articulate this specific cultic "speak" ? Now, it would not, would it ? So, why would you be sending me on a goose chase to read legions of scholars who I presume have accepted that the term refers to kin of Jesus, based simply on general semantics (Wells admits that the titular reading is lectio difficilior) and later traditions of the church ? I don't see any sense in that, especially when you fail - in your hyper-critical observations of my thinking habits - to focus on real issues.

Now, the real issue here is why would Wells, or anyone else, have problems accepting that James was related by blood to Jesus of Nazareth. Right ? To me, the answer is well laid out in Ben's first contribution to this thread:

It just does not seem probable that James who dominated a church ostensibly inaugurated in the name of his brother, as Pauline Lord, would be inserted in the narrative in such a manner. Or is it ?

And that's all there is in daBible evidence-wise, Jeffrey, that is, if one can resist the urge to put on airs.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Careful... careful.

It is possible. It is not my own preferred reading, since the brethren is so commonly used in this absolute sense to mean the church as a whole.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

My reading of the term brother(s) of the Lord does not depend on Jesus having inaugurated the church. You could imagine a parallel church inaugurated in the name of James (shades of Thomas 12), if you wish, for all that it matters to our purposes here.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Off the top of my head, I have no idea.

I do believe the gospels are fiction, but for reasons only incidentally connected with their treatment of James, and for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do directly with Constantine or Eusebius.

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Solo;5498484]Yes. But what does this have to do with the meaning of the genitive construction, let alone that the dative construction somehow affects the claim that the genitive construction denotes actual kinship?

Surmise away. But if you want to convince anyone of the truth of this surmise, produce some evidence for it.

First show me that Paul does "report on them" and does not use a dative construction to do so..

Why?

?

What "cultic" speak. Unless I'm missing something, you haven';t established that Paul engages in such "speech".

And here I thought I was focusing on real issues --namely, the difference between "brother of the Lord" and "brother/brethren in the Lord". Seems to me that if anyone is not focusing, it's you.

Jeffrey