spin

What I'm doing is swimming against an overburdening miscarriage of linguistics, which allows two significances for the same word without any cues to indicate which of the two significances is the writer's intention at the time. The problem resolves itself when one is aware of other writers having a hand in the development of the text. One writer uses one meaning, while a second uses another.

Now it could be that a second writer may have inserted this reference to the lord intending Jesus as the reference, but there is no need to posit such a conjecture, when the text can easily read god as the reference to kurios in this case.

Your analysis may merely be subjective, but mine deals with the act of communication. Can you think of a case where you would use a term to a listener such that you don't indicate in anyway which of the meanings you intend when you use the term????

If we cut through your rhetoric, are you saying that you don't understand the difference between the two uses of kurios in legei o kurios tw kuriw mou, ie "the lord said to my lord"?

What we have is a period between Paul and Mark when the difference between the two uses of kurios was significant.

You'll also find that Q doesn't use kurios the way you'd like either, so we have to wait for the third level of textual input into the other synoptics for the shift to referring to Jesus as the lord.


spin

Solo

It is nonetheless an example of use of blood-relation metaphor to express spiritual kinship.

YES. In the Gnostic tractate of Thomas the Contender:
Jiri

TedM

Becoming "like" Jesus and vice versa doesn't imply to me a blood relation.

Brother here could be either spiritual or physical. Same for "twin and true companion". If Thomas really were Jesus' twin I wouldn't expect the words "Since it has been said". This suggests to me a spiritual meaning. Otherwise, I would expect "since you are my twin...".




That's certainly reasonable. And, I see that Paul doesn't use "the Lord" in a way that likely refers to Jesus very often in comparison to the other uses.
However, how do you explain Luke and John, which use the same phrase to refer to both God and Jesus, and often, sometimes within a few sentences? Are you saying two or more authors must be involved, even when the meaning is clear from the context?

Couldn't one argue that when Paul uses "the Lord" it means God, except for the passages in which the readers would know that it refers to Jesus, from the context ("crucified the Lord of glory", etc).. The meaning of "Lord" in "brother of the Lord" would also be known to his readers, presumably. Are there really that many passages that his readers really can't tell which one it refers to? I'm not so sure.

Also, couldn't one argue that Paul since uses both "the Lord Jesus Christ" and "the Lord Jesus", even though it's not the same word, it is two different ways of referring to the same person. Why not occasionally shorten it one more word to "the Lord', especially when the context makes clear which Lord Paul means?


I find it interesting that GMatthew has no more references to Jesus using "the Lord" than Mark, yet Luke and John have plenty. Indicative perhaps of the timing of authorship??


Thanks for your patience. I'm not convinced because if Luke and John could use it both ways, then so could Mark, Paul, and Matthew, thus alleviating both the less likely interpretations and the interpolations..

Presumably "the Lord Jesus" came before "the Lord", and there was some development, but we don't know that such evolution hadn't already taken place to some extent by the time of Paul.

ted

spin

I've already fundamentally explained the Lucan evidence. The use of "the lord" is restricted to the "special material", meaning a different author from the other usage. John, I have similar thoughts about, but it's easier for me to point to the dating problem, that we can't date it, so we can't place it in respect of the other sources being analysed. We can happily construct a relative chronology Paul - Mark - Luke, but where does John fit in the sequence?

The main issue is that we can isolate the period up to Mark, which includes Paul, that doesn't advocate "the lord" as Jesus.

While I have no problem with the three instances of "the lord" which I have pointed out being interpolations, which coincidentally use "the lord" for Jesus, the James reference as the brother of the lord is not easily identifiable as an interpolation, nor is its reference to the lord easily identifiable as referring to Jesus.

The lord said to my lord.

Could be.

You assume singular authorship in each case, but there is no necessity for that. Luke is obviously based on different efforts, starting with the Marcan major source, then material shared with Matt and finally other material. It is only the last material which features the problem.

As to John, I have argued that there were signs of at least two authorial hands in the main work of the text.

That a text may use the term both ways doesn't mean that it was the same author.

As I've pointed out with Mark there is no reason to think that "the lord" is used outside the way it is in the LXX.

You still want the one person to use the term in two ways without cueing the desired meaning, such that the reader could know what he was talking about. This just appears to me as your will to project the binitarian ideas onto Paul.


spin

TedM

Ok. How well does the "different authors/sources" theory match up with the different uses of kurios?

I'm still not sure how many instances we have where the desired meaning isn't cued in Paul's works. As long as Paul cues the reader in, there isn't a problem. Or alternatively, why not assume Paul always meant "God" unless he cues the reader differently? How can we say that is illogical if we don't know if that was a convention of the time, or not?

time for bed,
ted

Ted Hoffman

You are right. My bad. Now my question is, how would one write a narrative when the author himself was not a participant in the events narrated? Would he use third person or first person?

And how would he write if he (the author) was present and wanted to indicate his presence in the events narrated?

Chris Weimer

Both ways have been done.

spin

It gets beyond what I was talking about, which was Paul's use of kurios and how it helps us understand "James the brother of the lord". That was supported by the notion that the first gospel doesn't feature any use of kurios outside that of Paul. To answer your question here would require more work and no yield for the specific topic.

As I pointed out the three examples where the absolute of kurios indicates Jesus are each apparently interpolations, so I'm left to ask did Paul ever use it to mean Jesus?

The only possible problematic examples are James the brother of the lord and the brothers of the lord. If Paul didn't refer to Jesus by the absolute form kurios, then did he write "James the brother of the lord" (and I see no reason why not) what does he mean by the phrase, if not Jesus?

What you'll find in the past in any attempts I've made on the subject is that people try to advocate the opposite to what you have here proposed: take all references to Jesus unless otherwise indicated, but then how does the reader know when it means god unless they can spot the LXX references (which is a bit much to hope for)?


spin

Solo

Ted, my belief is that James (and other brothers of the Lord) was (were) not blood relation(s). This is transparently a later Christian corruption of what appars to have been a cultic title. The quote I gave you was to show a possible origin of the title in the two Pauline verses.

Jiri

TedM

Jiri, that is possible, but it seems to assume that this Thomas passage pre-dated the gospels and that those who read this passage misunderstood it and somehow the gospels STILL didn't list Thomas as a brother. Too many unlikelihoods for me.


I agree, but it is relevant because if one man could do it later, Paul could have done it too.


And, the three passages you believe to be interpolations--which I'll address below, and for me the two that you interpret differently. So, 7 passages in my book.

So, I guess I can think outside the box, somewhat.


As for your three interpolations, here's my take:

First, IF this were an interpolation by someone familiar with the historical tradition, I'd expect it to mention Pilate or the Roman govt, and not simply "archons". As for the context, it fits in nicely. Paul has already contrasted the wisdom of men of God with foolish Jews and Gentiles, and he already mentioned just a few verses prior the crucifiction:

The verse in question is a perfect illustration of the main point he had been making. It is not "nonchalant".


It is not accurate to say that it "has nothing to do with the discourse". Paul had just said in the prior verse that God will "do away" with both the stomach and food, and that the body is "for the Lord". In the next verse he says that "our bodies are members of Christ". The verse in question simply ties in the fact that our bodies, which require food, will be "done away" and have already become "members of Christ" by stating why and how that is the case: through Jesus being raised we too will be raised (in new bodies) by God.




I"m not sure how much of this you believe to be an interpolation, but from what you have said about kurios I suspect you think that it is the entire part from the second half of verse 23 through verse 27, so that we are left with this:

I kept the first half of verse 23 because it seems unlikely that an interpolator using the gospels as a guide would have written the entire verse in such a strange way--as "the Lord" and "the Lord Jesus" both referring to Jesus, and both in the same passage. Therefore either Paul included the tradition about Jesus' words in the Last Supper, or Paul wrote it as it reads above.
The above reading is possible, but the "revelation" Paul got seems rather strange:--why must a man examine himself? Why does he bring judgement to himself, and why is there a tie-in between judgement and "the body" in verse 29? What' is so important about this "Lord's supper"?

Note how the chapter begins:

Paul first discusses head covering, and then the Lord's Supper. Both of these appear to be traditions regarding Christ. Was it regarding specific things about Jesus or the general characteristic of Christ's humility? And how did Paul know what characeristics Christ had that were to be imitated? For some reason the Lord's Supper was considered important, sacred even, having to do with Christ, and a tradition which either began with Paul ("delivered" means ??) or pre-dated him. The existence of a pre-existing tradition which included a tie-in of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ more reasonably explanation the above smaller passage, so I suspect that we must include part or all of the verses left out to provide a more coherent passage. As we do so, it looks more and more like the gospel tradition.

ted