TedM

so many mysteries, so little time..


Yeah, those don't help my case any. Acts 1:14 mentions the brothers of Jesus, but doesn't name James as one of them. I think Luke, Paul's companion, probably wrote at least part of Acts, but I've never studied it or read much critiquing it.

ted

Amaleq13

And three men by that name are identified as disciples by that name in the preceding verse.

Two verses later, "men and brethren" are addressed. Why the differentiation? It happens again in 2:29 and 37. Is that just a convention of writing for the time?

In Acts 11:1 we have "apostles and brethren" mentioned. In 12:17 we have:

"And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren."

andrewcriddle

In the Septuagint Genesis 14:13 is literally 'the brother' 1 Chronicles 27:18 is literally 'of the brothers' (plural) 2 Chronicles 36:4 is literally 'his brother'.

Jude 1:1 is literally 'a brother' , I suspect that the definite article is not used either because a/ the author is introducing himself rather than describing a third party or b/ 'brother of James' is secondary to the primary self designation 'servant of Jesus Christ' and continues in the same form, literally 'a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James'. But this is speculation.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

My guess is that "men" is all men being addressed, including non-believers, and that "brethren" is the male believers, which would include apostles, but the apostles--being a special subset were often singled out.

The 1:14 reference to 'his' brothers right after mentioning his Mary the mother of Jesus is most likely referring to biological brothers, but unless we can determine that Luke--Paul's close partner--wrote that, or at least someone very early on wrote it, it doesn't help my case much, I think.

Amaleq13

I agree that the reference is likely literal. Since Acts follows the Gospel stories that is neither surprising nor helpful in establishing it for Paul. I accept that the same author wrote Luke/Acts but I'm not convinced that the "we" passages (the only indication of personal involvement) are sufficient to justify the specific identification of the author.

I'm also less familiar with Acts than the Gospels but I think I need to read it carefully.

TedM

I agree. I always liked Acts, and maybe I'm just gullible but the historical parts sound pretty realistic to me.