TedM

Don, I’m sorry I took the focus off of the ‘when’ as much as I did here.

Continuing on the 'when' vein with regard to 1:Cor 9:5, here is why I think it is most likely referring to biological brothers: The arguments are similar to the ones for the James reference…

In, 1 Corin 9:5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" the context is of Paul vying for his rights as a fellow apostle.

Who are the "brothers of the Lord"?

1. fellow Christian men?
I don't think so because Paul never uses this phrase again yet refers to fellow brothers elsewhere. IF this were the meaning, I'd expect something more like "our brothers IN the Lord". "My brother", "our brother", "a brother" is used figuratively, but any time we see "brother of X" or "X's brother" in the NT (8 times excluding this one and the James reference) it is referring to a biological relationship. That's how people talked then, and that is how they talk now.

2. title of important people in the Church?
This title isn't seen anywhere in Paul's writings or elsewhere, even though Paul and others write of church positions. Paul lists the body of Christ in 1 Cor 12:28 "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. " Paul mentions Peter as prominent among the apostles several times. Yet, where are the 'brothers of the Lord"

3. no title but still mportant to the Church?
This is my take on it. Paul is talking about the rights his position entails in this passage so he is comparing his rights with people of importance. Since we know of no title "brothers of the Lord", the simplest interpretation is that he is talking about the brothers of Jesus, who obviously would be important in the early church

I assume Amaleq, that you have pretty much the same responses to what I wrote about James. The one main difference I see he is that Paul isn't just identifying some people here, but is actually identifying them as people of importance in order to make a point that works in his favor. One of the arguments you have made against the James reference is that you could see no benefit to Paul for mentioning James as being a brother to Jesus. Here, Paul's motivation is clear.

Like with the James reference, if the literal interpretation is correct, Jesus had lived very recently, and Paul is simply mentioning a known biological relationship.

ted

Amaleq13

Why are the "brothers of the Lord" differentiated from "the other apostles"?

Why is "Cephas" differentiated from "the other apostles"?

A special title does not necessarily equate with a bureaucratic church position.

He also mentions "Cephas" separate from "the other apostles" and, apparently, even separate from "the twelve".

Where are the other references to "the twelve"?

Rick Sumner

Because the "brothers of the Lord" aren't the "other apostles." That seems rather self-explanatory. It certainly doesn't point in the direction you imply it does. The brothers of the President aren't the same thing as the president's supporters either, despite the fact that the president's brothers doubtlessly support the president.

This isn't evidence against Don's reading.

See above.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

That's true. My position isn't airtight, of course.

Cephas was regarded as an apostle, so singling him out due to his prominence would necessitate reference to the other apostles as "the other apostles". "the twelve" mentioned in 1 Cor 15 could include or exclude Cephas. If Peter was among 'the twelve' at the time of the alleged appearance it would make more sense to say "the twelve" than, "Cephas, then to the other eleven".

This is off the subject at hand, but other than this one reference Paul doesn't mention them. However, Paul never mentions the 3 pillars elsewhere either. He just didn't focus on them in his letters and we don't question their existence much..

ted

TedM

I have a very different take on this

Galations 1:11 says "the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ"

The gospel Paul is talking about in Galations 1:11 isn't what we think. It isn't about his beliefs about who Jesus was, human Jesus vs spiritual, etc.. It is this: Gentiles need not be circumcized. This is what Galations is primarily ALL about! That's what the 'different gospel' in 1:6 is talking about.

Who can say for certain how Paul obtained this 'gospel'? Paul doesn't say in Galations. The revelation he refers to is simply that Jesus was the Son of God. I don't think we can exclude a vision, hallucination, or dream, or some other experience.

We can definitely say that Paul got OTHER information about Jesus from PEOPLE. Prior to his conversion he knew enough about Christianity to persecute them. Surely he at least knew some basics! And, 3 years after his conversion he spent fifteen days with Peter! That's a long time and he could have obtained a lot more information.

Putting it all together, I conclude the following:

Paul heard things about Jesus that sufficiently irritated him to persecute. What he heard was likely the basics of his theology: Jesus lived, died, and rose again because he was the Messiah. This information came from people, not God.

Paul had a vision, dream, or scriptural insight or something which convinced him that the faith of those people was correct, that the Jesus they worshipped was the Son of God.

Paul at some point believed himself to be chosen to preach salvation to the
Gentiles, and his 'gospel' included freedom from having to follow Jewish law. This may have been part of the conversion experience even.

Sorry Don, yet another post that doesn't address the issue of when Jesus lived.

ted

Amaleq13

I'm surprised it didn't occur to you that I wasn't looking for someone to state the obvious.

Let me clarify that I'm asking Ted why he thinks Paul has made this differentiation. How does it help his cause? Presumably, the "brothers" are apostles but why single them out in an attempt to declare himself equal to all apostles? If Ted is right, they are the siblings of Jesus so why does pointing out something they get to do make him equal? Is getting to take your wife with you a special privilege? IOW, is Paul saying "We get to take our wives with us just like the brothers get to!"?

That's a great example for what I'm asking. If I'm trying to claim that I'm just as much a supporter as every other supporter, how does it help me to say "The President's brothers get to bring their wives" unless it is some sort of indicator that one is a supporter? ETA: IOW, unless it is a special privilege that only supporters get, we might otherwise expect the President's brothers to obtain unique benefits from that relationship so pointing to their ability to do so wouldn't really mean you got to do it, too. The same seems to hold true for his Vice President (ie Cephas). Isn't Paul pointing out that he gets to do something those other guys get to do because they are apostles and not because of their special relationship with Jesus?

That's right, it was a question for Ted.

Amaleq13

Right but what is the point of singling him out? Is getting to bring along a believing wife a privilege for apostles?

I disagree. I think your ending phrase is exactly how one would describe it if Cephas was part of "the twelve" but had a separate appearance. Are you sure you aren't letting your knowledge of the Gospel story influence your interpretation? If you hadn't read those stories, wouldn't you assume Cephas was not part of "the twelve"?

I don't think it is and that's why I brought it up. Specifically, I think it counters your point #2 above. By that reasoning, we could not consider "the twelve" as a title for a specific subgroup of apostles but we clearly should consider them as such.

It seems to me that "the brothers of the Lord" could just as easily be a similar subgroup that is, like "the twelve" never again mentioned or explained.

TedM

I think he singles out Cephas here for the same reason he does in 1:12 and 3:22: He was prominent and the Corinthians knew him. Paul is talking about getting paid for his work, so I assume he mentions the wives because the privilege for the apostles is that they too are provided for by the churches.

Yes I would. However, I said "IF Peter was among 'the twelve'... Let's say Cephas was part of the twelve, and had had an earlier appearance. That means he had 2 experiences: To say "he appeared to Cephas, then to the other eleven" is misleading since he actually appeared to Cephas twice. It is more accurate to include Cephas in both appearances. Re-read your first sentence above. Does that still sound right to you?


I see. Yes that is possible.

If the brothers are a subset of apostles, then it may be that Paul was listing them in perceived order of importance for effect, ending with the most prominent: First, apostles in general, second the apostles with a blood relationship to Jesus Third, the apostle Jesus first appeared to.

I see it more as Paul saying he IS an apostle with equal rights, and is pointing out the privileges of the apostles as justification for his request for payment. 9:11-12 "If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap material benefits? If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more?"

ted

Amaleq13

"I (Paul) am just as much an apostle as Cephas or the brothers of the Lord", right?

Just to be clear (not necessarily for your sake ), this has more to do with understanding Paul than directly addressing your points.

Absolutely not. I have no personal preference about whether he was or was not part of that group. I'm simply taking Paul's statement as it is written and not reading anything into it.

Why? That isn't what Paul says so how can it help us understand what Paul meant? I was going to say that a desire to harmonize with the Gospel stories is not a legitimate approach but, now that I think about it, you can't even obtain that notion from them. They describe Jesus appearing to the remaining eleven subsequent to Judas' suicide. According to the Gospels and Acts, Jesus couldn't have appeared to "the twelve" until after Judas was replaced.

By your own admission, the current wording would be just as misleading if he was part of that group since it suggests Cephas was not. We have no reason from Paul to assume Cephas had two experiences and no reason to assume he was part of "the twelve".

Or: First, apostles in general, second comes the subgroup known as "the brothers of the Lord", and, last, the apostle to whom Jesus first appeared.

BTW, does the notion of multiple siblings require an explanation for James being called "the" brother rather than "a" brother? IIRC, Doherty suggests it is because he was the leader of the subgroup.

I vaguely recall someone around here who was familiar with Greek saying something about such articles but I can't recall the specifics. I can't remember if they are part of the original text or not.

And a reference to a subgroup of apostles seems to serve that purpose just as well as mentioning the first apostle to experience an appearance. As far as I can tell, nothing you've offered requires this phrase to be interpreted literally.

GakuseiDon

No problem Ted. The OT was about what Paul thought, so it isn't really off thread.