sschlichter

thank you for explaining their argument but I am talking about my argument. I can only think of one reason why you would bait and switch at this point.

My argument is not based on any conjecture at all. Only on these 2 texts and what they say.

1 Cor 9:5 kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou (and the brothers of the Lord)

you claimed this use is not referring to Jesus' brothers, but instead the usage is the same usage as the LXX and a group dedicated to him in name.

Gal 1:19 ton adelfon tou kuriou (the brother of the Lord)

this usage is the same and you argue that it is referring to God. I agree.

Now, to conclude that he was not referring to God the son (aka Jesus), you will have to make the following leaps:

1) that James is a member of the band of merry men referred to as the Lord's brothers.

2) that it is a mere coincidence that the person of Jesus whom Paul calls the Lord also is considered by Paul and others (including non-beleivers) to have a physical brother named James.

3) You have to assume that Paul's readers in Corinthians are aware of the band of merry men named the Lord's brothers and the readers in Galatians as well.

4) you have to assume that all of the merry men are married (from 1 cor 9)

5) you have to assume that the readers of Galatians know James is a card carrying member of the Lord's brothers.

6) you have to assume Paul was not concerned about the confusion over the idnetity of the person of James, the Lord's brother when he also refers to Jesus as the Lord whom has a brother named James

7) You have to assume that since ALL translations disagree with you, they are too old to know better (you are all set on this one)

8) James, the world famous member of the group called 'the Lord's brother's' happen to also be in Jerusalem when Paul was there. Further confusing the identity of James.

bacht

Well, Mark lists Jesus' siblings (apparently a fairly large gang), but of course there's no divine miracluous birth to cloud the issue.
Acts mentions them too:

All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

ch 1.14

spin

(This is a misunderstanding on your part running two separate issues together.)

Your earlier assumption is wrong, so this doesn't follow except in your error.

Just so we get this straight, it is wiser to use "brother(s) of the lord"

Here you are again running foul of anachronism. You are using later texts to elucidate earlier ones.

This is simply spurious. Would I have difficulties assuming that they know about Cephas?

Why what do you expect, celebate monks or something? Paul says they were married. Doh!

Umm, I get the idea that you are trying just too hard to find rationale.

More retrojection. You can use earlier to elucidate later, but not vice versa. You cannot contend with the intentions of the later writer in the formation of his text.

Translations work on manuscripts. We are trying to do text analysis. The comment is irrelevant.

Once again retrojection.

We are dealing with Paul and his ideas, not what you can glean from the gospels and inject into Paul. This methodology is simply flawed and can only lead you astray.

So church fathers starting with Origen conjecture that the brother of the lord is really the brother of Jesus and that the brothers of the lord are also brothers of Jesus. That in no way helps you to make a historically based argument on the significance of what Paul meant.


spin

sschlichter

yes, exactly. When referring to James, you would say brother of the Lord because he is the brother of Jesus. adelphoi is referring to all of the brothers of the Lord including James. Very simple. works the same way for you if you have multiple brothers. James, the brother of Jesus (aka The Lord).

Origen?

How about Matthew

(Matt 13:55) Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother named Mary? And aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

Mark

(Mark 6:3) Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren't his sisters here with us?" And so they took offense at him.

Josephus,

Origen certainly did not start the James, brother of Jesus rumor.

Pumping smoke into the room now?

sschlichter

yes, I agree. I would call these men The brothers of the Lord as did Paul.

bacht

But as spin points out Paul is usually dated earlier, presumably closer to the events being described. It's not unreasonable to imagine that primitive labels and practices were discarded or re-conceptualized by later generations (I have no idea about the Greek if it comes down to technical analysis)

sschlichter

It IS completely unreasonable to suggest it started with Origen.

spin

I got your assertion the first time.

You are still being anachronistic. What's the point?

If it were genuine, it would still be an anachronism.

I fear you're beyond hope. You don't understand the argument. You don't have a methodology. You can't stop making assertions or retrojecting.

You join the chorus and assert the brothers of the lord are Jesus's brothers who followed their half-brother into the family business. On what grounds? Because you have been swayed by later literature. With the same logic you would probably think Herod slew a bunch of kids in Bethlehem because the gospels said so. Well, there were kids in Bethlehem, weren't there?


spin

spin

Explain your reasoning.


spin

sschlichter

Mark, Matthew, Acts, Josephus (and I expect others if forced to research the matter) all assert that Jesus had a brother named James. Paul asserts that he met a man named James, he refers to a James that is the Lord's brother. The LORD referred to in the Septugaint does not have a brother named james. Nor is the existence of a group of men called The Lord's Brothers substantiated, nor is it even a unique use of kurios as you asserted with the exception that it refers to a man that is also God.

Since all of these assertions occurred long before Origien, then it IS completely unreasonable to suggest it started with Origen.